Lera 24

93122-01
ACSYNT
Inner Loop Flight Control

Design Study
NASa- /37Ol
Richard
Bortins
and John A. Sorensen
Prepared
The National
Aeronautics
Ames
for:
and Space
Research
Systems
Analysis
Mountain
View,
Administration
Center
Branch
California
Under:
Contract
No. NAS
2-13701
July 1993
SEAGULL TECHNOLOGY,
INC.
1310 Hollenbeck.Sunnyvale,
CA 94087408/732-9620
Table
of Contents
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
1.2
ACSYNT
1.3
Project
1.4
Road Map to Report ..................................................................................................
Inner
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
3.2
3.3
4
Inner
4.1
Vision
.......................................................................................................
Summary
.......................................................................................................
Loop
Flight
Control
Inputs to the ILFCS
Design
Process
Requirements
.........................................................................
2.1.2
Inputs
from
the User
.....................................................................................
2.1.3
Inputs
from
ACSYNT
...................................................................................
Process
Outputs
Parameter
Functional
Default
of the ILFCS
Sets ..................................................................................
Design
......................................................................
2.2.1
Outputs
to the User
.......................................................................................
2.2.2
Outputs
to ACSYNT
.....................................................................................
Conclusion
................................................................................................................
Effector
Design
11
Effectors ....................................................................................................................
11
3.1.1
Definition
11
3.1.2
Control
3.1.3
Preliminary
Control
.....................................................................................................
Surface
Air Worthiness
3.2.2
Design
3.2.3
DATCOM
Loop
Inputs
Surface
Design
........................................................
Methodology
Constraints
Required
Decoupled
4.1.2
Coupled
4.1.3
Dynamics
Actuators
4.3
Sensors
4.4
The FCS Design
17
.............................
18
..............................................
19
.................................................................................
Methodology
for Computing
Control
Derivatives
22
.....................
Design
Dynamics
4.1.1
11
......................................
.........................................................................................................
Control
Aircraft
Considerations
...................................................................................................
3.2.1
Conclusion
Design
Control
Derivatives
4.2
4.5
Module
2.1.1
Control
3.1
...............................................................................................................
22
....... 45
47
.....................................................................................................
47
Dynamics
....................................................................................
48
........................................................................................
49
Dynamics
of Case Studies
Aircraft ...............................................................
50
...................................................................................................................
51
......................................................................................................................
54
Algorithm
4.4.1
The Linear-quadratic
4.4.2
Enumeration
4.4.3
Discussion
Conclusion
......................................................................................
Method
.......................................................................
of the Steps in the Algorithm

of Case Studies
..................................................
...........................................................................
................................................................................................................
54
55
57
58
62
Summary
5.1
5.2
and
Summary
Recommendations
63
...................................................................................................................
5.1.1
FCS Design
5.1.2
Control
5.1.3
Inner
Requirements
Effector
Loop
Recommendations
5.2.1
Immediate
5.2.2.
Intermediate
............................................................................
Design
Flight
Control
for Further
Tasks
Tasks
................................................................................
Design
Work
.................
................................................
........................................
...............................
63
63
63
64
64
...........................................................................................
64
........................................................................................
65
67
References
69
Appendix
ii
Introduction
The NASA
Ames
Research
Center
developed
the Aircraft
Synthesis
(ACSYNT)
computer
program
to synthesize
conceptual
future aircraft designs and to evaluate critical performance
metrics early in the design process before significant
resources
are committed
and cost decisions
made. ACSYNT
uses steady-state
performance
metrics, such as aircraft range, payload
and fuel
consumption,
and static performance
metrics, such as the control authority
takeoff rotation and for landing with an engine out, to evaluate conceptual
also optimize
designs
with respect
to selected
criteria
required
for the
aircraft designs. It can
and constraints.
Many modem aircraft have stability provided by the flight control system rather than by the
airframe.
This may allow the aircraft designer
to increase
combat agility, or decrease
trim drag,
for increased
range and payload. This strategy requires concurrent
design of the airframe
and the
flight control system, making trade-offs
of performance
and dynamics
during the earliest stages
of design.
ACSYNT
presently
lacks means to implement
flight control system designs but research
is being
done to add methods for predicting
rotational
degrees of freedom and control effector
performance.
A software module to compute
and analyze the dynamics
of the aircraft, and to
compute
feedback
gains and analyze closed loop dynamics
is required.
The data gained from
these analyses
can then be fed back to the aircraft design process so that the effects of the flight
control system and the airframe
on aircraft performance
can be included
as design metrics.
This report presents
results of a feasibility
study and the initial design work to add an inner loop
flight control system (ILFCS) design capability
to the stability and control module in ACSYNT.
The overall objective
is to provide a capability
for concurrent
design of the aircraft and its flight
control system, and enable concept designers
to improve performance
by exploiting
the
interrelationships
between aircraft and flight control system design parameters.
1.1
Background
The objective
of aircraft
conceptual
design
is to answer
basic
questions
of configuration
arrangement,
size and weight, cost, and performance.
1 The goal is to work through
choices available
to aircraft designers
rapidly, efficiently,
and effectively
to arrive
the major
at a
configuration
that satisfies the given requirements.
Designers
use rules of thumb, algorithms,
design guidelines,
history and projections
of the capabilities
of new technology
to determine
best to satisfy many diverse and sometimes
conflicting
requirements.
The conceptual
design
how
phase ends with specialists

in disciplines
such as aerodynamics,
structures,
propulsion
and
control systems using specialized
tools to analyze their parts of the problem.
At this point, the
design effort fragments
into specialized
disciplinary
efforts that may or may not stay in step with
each other. The conceptual
design phase is unique in that it is the only time the aircraft design
resides in a single designer's
mind or on a single computer. 2
The ACSYNT
program
uses parameter
studies, industry practices,
and important
trends to
estimate
the aerodynamic,
structural,
weight and balance, propulsion,
stability and control, and
economic
characteristics
of a conceptual
design. It provides
six ways to arrive at a final
conceptual
design: 3, 4
Converge
to the appropriate
Optimize
a specified
Compute
variables
the sensitivity
Analyze
Compute
specified
Optimize
Presently,
function
using
ACSYNT
with respect
combinations
design
for a given
when
of two design
the design
design
to specified
of one or more specified
the sensitivity
independent
fuel loading
point
constraints
functions
to one or more
design
variables
is optimized
with respect
to the remaining
variables
approximation
evaluates
techniques
longitudinal,
steady-state
flight
performance
at discrete
design
points.
1.2
ACSYNT
Vision
ACSYNT
continually
evolves to account for technology
advances, and to add precision
and
expanded
capabilities
in the aircraft disciplines
of propulsion,
aerodynamics,
structures,
and
stability and control that are required to perform and evaluate design trades between the
disciplines
at the conceptual
design level. This enables concept designers
to improve the
performance
of their designs by exploiting
the interrelationships
between design parameters
that
are in the domains of these more specialized
disciplines.
Figure
1.1 shows
currently
the software
assisting
NASA
modules
comprising
ACSYNT
and some
of the organizations
in this development.
COPE_CONMIN
ACSYNT
EXECUTIVE
WEIGHTS
3-D Modeling
(VPI)
p,
I AERODYNAMICS
II
PROPULSION
6-DOF AEROX
(Axelson)
Wing Wt. Eqs.

(UM)
r
I TRAJECTORIES
AgilityCycle
(Cal Poly)
I
STABILITY_AND
STRUCTURES
Eqv. Plate Meth.
(UW)
(Seagull)
Figure 1.1: ACSYNT
software
modules
NEPP
(VPI/Lewis)
Enhancing ACSYNT
capabilities
must avoid increasing
the number of required inputs
excessively
and adding such complexity
in the specialized
disciplines
that the tool is no longer
usable by aircraft concept designers.
The objectives
are to determine
rapidly and efficiently
the
effect on total aircraft performance
of design changes at high levels within these disciplines
and
to allow discipline
specialists
the opportunity
to understand
how their efforts affect other
disciplines.
Each discipline
has so many design parameters
and performance
metrics that only parameters
and metrics of each discipline
that have the most influence
on aircraft performance
must be
identified
and integrated
into the concept design process. This integration
should use
formulations
and approximations
that promote rapid design iterations
until more design details
can be established.
A designer
has many choices available. Adding additional
level of detail to ACSYNT
will
increase the number of choices and the difficulty
of comparing
multiple concepts
and the time
required
as more choices will have to be made without the aid of the ACSYNT
tool. To enable a
designer
to focus on the effects on performance
of specific aspects of the aircraft, initial designs
that satisfy all constraints
must be provided.
Moreover,
default constraints
must also be provided.
These defaults
and initial designs provide a point of departure
for the designer.
The data for the
defaults
atypical
1.3
and initial designs can come from historical

trends.
solutions and suggested
remedies
must be provided
Project
for convergence
had the following
Determine
control
goals:
what additional
system
design
detail
is required
in ACSYNT
to include
an inner loop flight
capability
Provide for the design of an inner loop of a flight control system (FCS) by determining
the level of modeling
fidelity and the importance
of terms in the aircraft dynamics
Evaluate
the costs and benefits
FCS control
Design
Evaluate
Determine
parameters
This report
ACSYNT
synthesis
to
Summary
This project
Finally, warnings
to the designer.
an FCS architecture
synthesis
to support
techniques
how to integrate
with ACSYNT
summarizes
must
lateral/longitudinal
rotational
dynamics
an algorithm
Aircraft
stability
Aircraft
mass properties
Flight
condition
the inner
made
Such
and control
the conceptual
design
for the FCS architecture
the progress
calculate
algorithm.
of including
coupling
in the inner
loop
design
these
operating
and performance
points
evaluation
goals.
to implement
needs,
of ACSYNT
and the design
loop FCS design
towards
mission
an inner
loop flight
control
system
as a minimum,
derivatives
such as mass,
center
data such as attitude,
velocity
of mass,
and moments
and atmospheric
of inertia
density
Aircraft
stability and control derivatives
describe non-steady-state
aerodynamics
control design. The control derivatives
characterize
force and moment generators
their size, aerodynamic
shape, and location. The mass properties
are determined
during linear
and depend on
by weight and
configurationlayout.Theflight conditionsareusedto convertdimensionlessderivativesto

dimensionedderivativesandto computeoutputquantitiessuchasangleof attack,tr., and sideslip
angle,
_.
Control surface sizing and control

and are summarized
in this report.
derivative computation
methods were found in references s. 6.
The design approach
adopted for ACSYNT
will use linearized
aircraft dynamics
at selected flight conditions
within the flight envelope.
The linear-quadratic
method was chosen as the flight control system design algorithm
because it accommodates
linearized
dynamics
with lateral/longitudinal
coupling
and because it provides
a "hands-off"
way
to compute
feedback
gains from design criteria. The linear-quadratic
method uses the dynamics
in state-space
form, and the important
stability derivatives
to form these dynamics
were
identified.
The state-space
form has the advantages
that many analytical,
design, and simulation
tools exist for dynamics
in this form. The FCS architecture
will assume that all aircraft state
variables
can be measured
perfectly and fed back through a control law to the actuators
to
guarantee
closed loop stability even when aircraft dynamics
is open loop unstable.
Case studies comprising
3 aircraft, each at 3 flight conditions,
were used to test the pole
placement
method and the linear-quadratic
method. A single set of initial control design
parameters
were found to give acceptable
results for the longitudinal
dynamics.
This provides a
good starting point for automated
control design iterations.
We also tested the method on
lateral/directional
dynamics.
A preliminary
specification
for an interface
between ACSYNT
and
an inner loop control design module has been formulated.
1.4
Road
Map
to Report
This report summarizes

work performed
to date
and plots,
Section
and notes
1 contained
the results,
for contract
and reprints
findings, conclusions
and recommendations
based on the
NAS 2-13701.
Technical
details such as MATLAB scripts
from references
the introduction,
background,
have
been
ACSYNT
assembled
vision
into the Appendices.
and project
summary.
Section 2 presents
interface
requirements
for the addition of an inner loop flight control design
module to ACSYNT.
The requirements
comprise
what is needed by such a module from other
ACSYNT
modules
and what results will be returned to the user and other ACSYNT
modules.
Section 3 discusses
control surface sizing and control derivative
computation.
This reiterates
methods found in Roskam and other references.
Section 4 discusses
flight dynamics,
presents
the
inner loop flight control design algorithm

and summarizes
the results of the case studies. The last
section summarizes
our findings and presents recommendations
for the continuing
development
of the ACSYNT
stability and control module.
Inner Loop Flight Control Module Interface Requirements
This section
level diagram
discusses
the inner loop control
of the organization
design
interface
for an inner loop control
with ACSYNT.
design
Figure
2.1 is a top
module.
Figure 2.1:
Schematic
of the inner
loop flight control
system
(ILFCS)
design
module
The elements
in the top row are inputs to the inner loop control module from ACSYNT,
default
data sets, or user input. The flight conditions,
stability derivatives,
control derivatives,
and mass
properties
are used to calculate the aircraft dynamics.
Sensor and actuator dynamics
and errors
also affect flight control system performance.
Section 4 gives a justification
for assuming,
for the
purposes
of conceptual
design, that sensor dynamics
are perfect. The methodology
chosen does
not preclude
addition of sensor models in the future. Actuators
will have f'wst-order dynamics
with time constants
loaded from the default data sets. The composite
of the aircraft and actuator
dynamics
is the main
set of feedback
gains
evaluate performance
evaluation.
Data from
input to the inner loop control design algorithm.

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

effector design
variation
in feedback
control gains over several flight conditions
indicates
complexity
of the ultimate flight controller;
a high variation
turn implies a higher cost flight control computer.
implies
parameters.
The
the potential
a complex
controller
that in
The interfacerequirementsfor theILFCSdesignmodulearediscussedin two parts.Subsection

2.1 coversthe necessaryinputsto theILFCS designprocess.Subsection2.2 discussestheoutputs
thattheILFCS designprocessprovidesto the designerandasfeedbackto the ACSYNT design
andoptimization process.
2.1
Inputs
There
to the ILFCS
are three
classes
Design
of inputs
Default
parameter
Inputs
from
Inputs
from ACSYNT
Process
to the ILFCS
design
process.
sets
the user
The default parameter

sets provide initial estimates
of flight control system parameters
to
minimize
designer
workload
when the FCS is not the primary concern. The inputs from the user
are made when the designer
has special considerations,
such as mission and flight conditions.
The user can also override any default parameter.
The inputs from ACSYNT
are the data
computed
2.1.1
by other
ACSYNT
modules
that are necessary
to define
the aircraft
dynamics.
Default Parameter Sets
The purpose
of the default flight control system design parameters
is to provide an initial design
that is a realistic point of departure
for including
the control design considerations
without
thought or effort. This is usually done early in the aircraft design process. The performance
of
this initial controller
will be reasonable
enough for initial studies. Ultimately,
the algorithm
will
converge
to a much
better
performing
controller
after starting
with this initial
The default flight control system design parameter sets are organized
MIL-F-8785C
classification
(Table 2.1) has been selected.
Table 2.1
Class
MIL-F-8785
Aircraft
C Aircraft
small
II
medium
weight
heavy
to these
and
maneuverability
maneuverability
high maneuverability
Most civilian aircraft can be mapped

report are from the last three classes.
are unique
Classification
and
low to medium
IV
The
and light
low to medium
large,
by aircraft class.
Type
III
design.
into the fil"st three

The methodology
classes. The case studies presented in this

and data bases used to derive parameters
classes.
The default design parameter

sets are the appropriate
are three classes of specifications:
control
system
design
specifications.
There
Design
objectives
Design
constraints
Fixed
design
(e.g., stability,
no oscillation)
(e.g., deflection
variables
and rate limits)
(e.g., dynamics
of sensors
and actuators)
The usual design objective

is to optimize
a particular
performance
metric while staying within
constraints
on other performance
metrics. Thus, the control design parameters
in the default
design parameter
sets are the constraints
on the metrics not optimized
and designation
of which
metric is to be optimized.
These design objectives
are the defaults rather than, say feedback
gains, because
gains depend on the particular
aircraft dynamics
while the constraints
and the
metric to optimize depends
more on the aircraft class. Useful measures
of control system
performance
are:
Percent
Rise time
Peak
control
surface
Peak
vertical
and lateral
Percent
steady-state
Closed
loop natural
Closed
loop damping
The fast
overshoot
four metrics
deflection
acceleration
error
frequencies
ratios
are transient,
time-domain
measures.
They require
a simulation
capability
to evaluate.
The steady-state
error can be evaluated
analytically
only when no nonlinearities
are
present;
otherwise
a simulation
capability
again is required.
The last two metrics directly relate to
aircraft handling qualities and can always be evaluated
analytically.
2.1.2
Inputs from the User
The designer
will select an aircraft class and an aircraft mission.
the control design criteria appropriate
for that class, as described
The selection
of a class loads
in the previous
subsection.
The
designer
can override
any of the default design parameter
values. The aircraft mission determines
the flight conditions
used to compute
the aircraft dynamics,
and the stability and control
derivatives.
The flight conditions
are made up of maneuvers
such as
Steady,
level
Steady,
level turns
Steady
climbs
Steady
rolls
High
One engine
Take-off
Approach
angle
flight
or descents
of attack
maneuvers
inoperative
at various combinations
of altitude and velocity. The fast and last three flight conditions
are
applied to all classes of aircraft. The middle two are usually applied only to fighter aircraft in
Class IV.
2.1.3
Inputs from ACSYNT
The primary
data required
Mass
Stability
Control
from ACSYNT
modules
are
properties
derivatives
derivatives
These are used to compute

the aircraft dynamics.
The mass properties
include mass, center of
mass, and the inertia matrix. The orientation
of the body axes with respect to the stability axes is
also needed if the inertias axe defined with respect to the body frame. The stability and control
derivatives
are usually divided into longitudinal
derivatives
and lateral/directional
derivatives
because
the aircraft
dynamics
decouples
(Table
Table 2.2:
Stability
2.2).
and control
Longitudinal
At some flight conditions

may be necessary.
2.2
derivatives
Lateral
CD
CLq
Cy#
Cnp
CD u
CL 8
Cy_
Cn5
CD a
Cm
Cy r
Clfl
CD 5
Cm u
Cyp
Clfl
CL
Cmct
Cy 8
Clr
CL u
Cm_t
Cnfl
Clp
CLot
Cmq
Cnlj
CL&
Cm 5
Cn r
the dynamics
are coupled,
so other
stability
and control
derivatives
Outputs of the ILFCS Design Process
Two kinds of outputs are required of the ILFCS design process. The first are the data provided
to
the user to show how well the process is converging,
how good the final controller
performs,
and
what might be done to improve performance.
The second are data provided
to ACSYNT
modules
(most likely the COPES/CONMIN
optimization
program)
to integrate
the ILFCS design process
into ACSYNT's
design optimization
and sensitivity
computation
functions.
2.2.1
Outputs to the User
The main driver for the user outputs is that they be useful to an aircraft
feedback
control expert. Four types of data will be useful:
Plots
of time responses
Performance
Design
constraint
Iteration
history
metric
values
values
designer
rather
than a
The plots of time responses

are probably of the most use to an aircraft designer.
The particular
variables
of interest
will depend on the class of aircraft, and, consequently,
the default design
parameters.
The designer
will also be able to specify other variables.
The performance
metric
values and the design constraint
values indicate how well the control system performs
and what
might be limiting
history will show
2.2.2
the performance
how the control
when a constraint
has been reached or violated.
design algorithm arrived
at its results.
The iteration
Outputs to ACSYNT
The main driver for ACSYNT

outputs is to integrate
the control design process into the
functionality
that exists in ACSYNT
for aircraft design. The primary data required
by ACSYNT
modules are
Closed loop performance metricvalues
Control system gains
Actuator and sensorrequirementsforconstraintdefinition

Locally optimized FCS parameters
Sensitivities
to stability
and controlderivatives
The goal isto establisha capabilityto use thedependencies between aircraft

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

simple does not mean that it is practically
simple.
The local optimization

approach
identifies
ways to
improve control system performance.
This data can
derivative
computations
to determine
which aircraft
violation
of control effector deflection
or rate limits
already
handles.
However,
change stability and control derivatives

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

can be very
Conclusion
This section presented the interface

requirements
for adding an inner loop flight control system
design module to the ACSYNT
program. Both user interface
and program
module interface
requirements
were discussed.
The next two sections give details on the functionality
required.
3 Control
Effector Design
This section outlines the procedures

to add to the ACSYNT
code to design flight control
effectors
and to compute
the associated
control derivatives.
These must be added to ACSYNT
when an ILFCS design module is added because the control derivatives
are essential
ingredients
to flight control
3.1
design.
Effectors
3.1.1
Definition
In the context
of aircraft
design,
the control
effectors
are the mechanisms
that are used to
produce forces and moments

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

different control surface designs and
have appeared.
These include elevons, camardovators,
stabilators,
the design
principles
remain
the same for each of these
control
and
surface
For high performance

aircraft or aircraft with special mission requirements,
other force
generators
besides control surfaces have been developed.
These consist of directed thrust forces
from the propulsion
system to allow special movements
such as near vertical takeoff and hover,
yaw without
roll,
In the following,
surface effectors.
that other
3.1.2
force
control
without
the design
However,
generators
need
for a vertical
tail, etc.
outline is limited to requirements

the ACSYNT
logic development
could
be added
as design
options
for specifying
and sizing control
will be designed
to be modular
so
at a later date.
Control Surface Design Considerations
Three passes
surfaces:
are made
through
the design
1. The baseline
control surface
other design considerations,
average size and dimension
2. The control
requirements
Regulations
meet
cycle
to determine
the geometry
of the control
geometry
is selected subject to surface constraints
determined
as discussed
below. This selection is based upon historical
for similar types of aircraft.
moment provided
by the baseline design is checked
against minimum
static
that are stated as Military Specifications
(Milspecs)
or Federal Aviation
(FARs). If necessary,
the control surface area or the moment arm is increased
by
to
the requirements.
3. The control
the aircraft
moment effectiveness
with the flight control
is checked
by examining
the transient
system (FCS) in place. If the transient
meet requirements
by FCS gain adjustment
and design changes alone,
necessary
to increase
the control surface size and moment arm further
configuration
PAGE
geometry.
BLANPK NOT
FRMED
dynamic response
of
performance
can not
then it may be
or to change the
The next two subsections

first design
3.1.2.1
Geometric
control
surface
ao
Ailerons
discuss
the geometric
constraints
and historical
data used during
the
pass.
constraints.
caused
This refers to constraints
by the presence
and elevons
of other items
to the geometric
or practical
- Fig. 3.1 is a sketch of a wing
structural
planform
dimensions
of the
constraints.
with flap and aileron.
The flap
is designed
first to give the appropriate
slow speed lift characteristics
for the landing or
takeoff process. This sets the inner span boundary
Ya/for most ailerons. The exception
is for
some jet transports
where inner and outer sets of ailerons are used inside and outside of the
flaps. For this case, the flaps also set the outer span boundary
for the inner aileron. For delta
wing aircraft,
elevons are used for both roll and pitch control. The geometric
constraints
imposed
by the flaps are the same, however. The outer limit of the aileron span Yao is the
wing half-span
b. For inboard ailerons, the inner span boundary
is some reasonable
margin
from the fuselage wall.
Figure. 3.1
Sketch
The other parameters

that specify aileron size
dimension
Caa. The average chord dimension
location.
The aileron chord is often set by the
aileron surface hinges are mounted to the rear
the chord dimension.
For design practicality,
equal
bo
of wing planform.
are the surface area Sa and the average chord
is measured
at the average aileron span
location of the rear wing spar. That is, the
wind spar. Thus, there is a structural
limit to
the forward dimension
of the aileron can be set
to that of the flaps.
Rudder - The geometry

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

the presence
of a mid-tail
engine. Figure 3.2 shows examples

of vertical tails 7. The rudder would be specified
to run a
certain fraction of the span by of the tail. When the horizontal
and vertical tail geometries
and
engine locations
are specified
within the ACSYNT
design process,
logic must be added to
constrain
the inner and outer rudder spanwise dimensions
in compliance
with the geometries.
When
the basic
rudder
geometry
is computed,
it is limited
by the geometric
constraints.
Figure 3.2
Examples
of vertical
13
tail geometries
[Roskam 7]
C.
Elevator
and stabilator
- The elevator geometry is dictated
by the geometry
of the horizontal
tail. Normally,
the only constraint
is the inner span location;
this is dictated by the fuselage
wall or the vertical tail wall for T-tail design. The inner span elevator dimension
may be
limited so as to not interfere
with full rudder deflection.
For a stabilator,
the entire horizontal
tail is both the horizontal
stabilator
3.1.2.2
stabilizer
and the elevator;
designing
the stabilizer
takes
care of the
design.
Historical
trends.
For the first design
pass for aileron,
rudder,
and elevator
geometry
design, initial estimates

of span, chord or surface area can be based on trends in historical
data
for the same parameters.
The following
Tables 3.1-3.3 summarize
these parameters
for three
classes of aircraft - fighters, business jets, and jet transports.
These data are repeated
from
Roskam 5 which contains larger tables and for several other types of aircraft.
Table 8.1
Fighter
Elevator
aircraft
Data
control
Rudder
surface
parameters
Data
Aileron
Data
SelSh
fr. Ch
Sr/Sv
fr. Cv
Sa/Sw
fr. b12
fr. Cw
elevons
.20
.22/.29
.14
.18/1.0
.13/1.0
Mir. F1C
1.0
stabilator
.16
.21L35
.031
.77/1.0
.23/.25
Mir.
elevons
.16
.21/.34
.13
.19/1.0
.13/1.0
Et.
1.0
stabilator
.18
.25/.49
.053
.57/.81
.23/.27
FR A-10A
.32
.33
.28
.31L34
.094
.58/.91
.42/.40
Grum.
A6A
1.0
stabilator
.21
.28L21
Grum.
F14A
1.0
stabilator
.29
.29/.33
North.
F5E
1.0
stabilator
.15
.26/.30
.050
.76/.99
.34/.33
A7A
1.0
stabilator
.13
.21/.29
.053
.59/.90
.20/.24
McD
D F-4E
1.0
stabilator
.20
.20/.29
.040
.63/.98
.23/.28
McD
D F-15
1.0
stabilator
.25
.30/.50
.053
.60/.86
.25/.27
G DFB-111A
1.0
stabilator
.21
.25L26
GDF-16
1.0
stabilator
.25
.34/.33
.13
.30/.73
.21/.23
.25
.34/.31
.35
.37/.39
.061
.56/.91
.27/.32
.29
.26/.37
.26
.26/.41
.069
.58/.90
.24/.26
MIG-25
1.0
stabilator
.15
.24
.053
.54/.79
.22/.21
Su-7BMK
1.0
stabilator
.26
.28/.25
.11
.62/.97
.29/.35
Type
Dassault
Mir. IIIe
2000
Super
Vought
Cessna
A37B
Aermacchi
In the tables,
MB339K
the ratios
of control
surface
area to wing, horizontal,
or vertical
as SalSw, SelSh, and Sr/Sv. The corresponding

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

of the half wing span, or fr. b/2.
14
are given
chord to wing or tail

are given, for chord ratios,
data, the
For fighter aircraft, Table 3.1 shows that most types of aircraft use stabilators
rather than the
elevator.
Two Mirage types use elevons to combine the functions
of elevator and aileron into one
surface; these are delta wing configurations.
The rudder surface represents
about 22% of the
vertical stabilizer
surface on the average with the chord dimension
ranging
from 20% to 50% of
the total chord, depending
on the configuration.
For the fighter aircraft ailerons, the spanwise
dimension
ratio ranges from. 18 to .77 inboard and from .73 to 1.0 outboard.
The aileron surface
area averages
to about
7.6%
of the wing
Table 3.2 Business

Elevator
Type
Dassault
Falcon
10
surface
jet aircraft
Data
area for the aircraft

control
Rudder
surface
listed
in Table
3.1.
parameters
Data
Aileron
Data
Se/Sh
fr. Ch
Sr/Sv
fr. cv
Sa/Sw
fr. b/2
fr. cw
.20
.31L29
.32
..34/.49
.051
.67/.95
.27L31
Falcon
20
.22
.28/.31
.23
.25L39
.057
.62/.92
.25
Falcon
50
.23
.31/.34
.12
.21/.32
.049
.68L97
.27
Cessna
Citation
.29
.32/.23
.36
.36
.096
.55/.94
.32/.30
.078
.56/.89
.32/.30
.70/.86
.21/.17
500
Citation
II
.36
..37/.35
.34
.35L31
Citation
.34
.39/.42
.30
.37/.38
.26
.36/.26
.17
.23/.22
.050
.63L89
.25/.23
Gates
Learjet
Learjet
35A
.33
.33
.17
.26/.25
.066
.55/.79
.30/.27
Learjet
55
.32
.31/.35
.17
.26/.25
.062
.49/.71
.30
.28
.30/.31
.26
.29/.31
.033
.73/.91
.23/.26
.42
.40/.44
.30
.36/.32
.033
.68/.91
.22/.20
.25
.30/.32
.21
.33/.32
.040
.67/.95
26/.25
.25
.29/.26
.18
.34/.44
.050
.59/.90
.21L31
.48
.37/.67
.22-
.31/.37
.084
.66/1.0
.33/.46
.33
.33
.24
.28
,038
.66/.86
.24/.27
.37
.37
.25
.33/.28
.012
.86/.94
.20/.22
Canadair
Challenger
Aerospatiale
Israel
24
SN-601
Airc.Astra
Westwind
Brit. Aero.
G.A.
III
MU Diam.I
125-700
From Table 3.2 for business jets, all the designs are conventional
with elevator, rudder and
aileron surfaces.
The average elevator area is 30.8% of the horizontal
stabilizer
area. The average
rudder area is 24.0% of the vertical stabilizer
area. The average aileron area is 5.3% of the wing
area.
For jet transports,
Table 3.3 shows that this class of aircraft has a conventional
tail configuration.
The exception
is the L1011 which uses a stabilator.
The average elevator surface area is 32.4%
the horizontal
tail area. The average rudder surface area is 29.3% of the vertical tail area.
of
The roll control for jet transports

uses both inboard and outboard ailerons and spoilers. Table 3.3
presents
span and chord dimensions
for all four surfaces. Typically,
the inboard ailerons
operate
in all flight conditions,
but the outboard ailerons operate with flaps down only. Spoilers are used
15
for both lateralcontrol andas speedbrakes.Of the 17aircraft types
in Table 3.3, the nine smaller

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

Table 3.3
classification.
Jet transport
Elevator
aircraft
control
Rudder
surface
parameters
Inboard
Aileron
Se/Sh
fr. Ch
Sr/Sv
fr. Cv
SalSw
fr. b/2
fr. Cw
.25
.29/.31
.16
.29/.28
.043
.38/.46
.17/.24
737-200
.27
.30/.32
.24
.25/.22
.024
none
none
737-300
.24
.24/.34
.31
.26/.50
.021
none
none
747-200B
.24
.29
.30
.30
.04O
.38/.44
.17/.25
747SP
.21
.32/.20
.27
.31/.34
.040
.38/.44
.17/.25
757-200
.25
.29/.38
.34
.35L33
.027
none
none
767-200
.23
.30/.25
.35
.33/.36
.041
.31/.40
.23/.20
McD
.34
.39/.38
.39
.49/.46
.030
none
none
DC-9-50
.38
.41L47
.41
.45/.44
.038
none
none
DC-10-30
.22
.25/.30
.18
.35
.047
.32/.39
.20/.25
.26
.35
.30
.35/.36
.049
.29/.39
.23/.27
.26
.33/.30
.35
.33/.35
.027
.32/.40
.23/.27
1.0
stabilator
.23
.29L26
.051
.40/.49
.22/.23
.20
.34/.33
.16
.29/.31
.034
none
none
Type
Boeing
727-200
D DC-9-80
AIRBUS
A300-B4
A310
Lockheed
Fokker
L1011
F-28
BAC
111
.27
.41/.35
.28
.39/.37
.030
none
none
BAC
146-200
.39
.42/.44
.44
.29
.046
none
none
.18
.27/.25
.27
.37
.036
none
none
Tu-154
16
Continued.
Table 3.3
Outboard
Inboard
Aileron
Outboard
Spoiler
Spoiler
fT.b_
fT. Cw
.09/. 14
.48/.72
.16/.20
.40/.66
.14/.18
none
none
.23/.30
.38/.64
14
none
none
.70/.95
.11/. 17
.46/.67
.12/.16
none
none
747SP
.70/.95
.11/. 17
.46/.67
.12/.16
none
none
757-200
.76/.97
.22/.36
41/.74
.12/.13
none
none
767-200
.76/.98
.16/.13
.16/.31
.091.11
.44/.67
.12/.17
McD D
.64/.85
.31/.36
.35/.60
.10/.08
none
none
DC-9-50
78/.95
.30/35
.35/.60
.10/.08
none
none
DC-10-30
75/93
.29/.27
17/.30
05/.06
43/.72
.11/.16
.83/.99
.32/.30
.57/.79
.16/.22
none
none
none
none
.62/.83
.16/.22
none
none
.77/.98
.26/.22
.13/.39
.08/.12
.50/.74
.14/.14
.66/.91
.29/.28
none
none
none
none
Type
fT. b12
fr. Cw
fr. b/2
fT.
Boeing727-200
.76/.93
.23/.30
.14/.37
737-200
.74/.94
.20/.28
737-300
.72/.91
747-200B
DC-9-80
AIRBUS
A300-B4
A310
Lockheed
Fokker
L1011
F-28
Cw
BAC
111
.72/.92
.26
.37/.68
.06/.11
none
none
BAC
146-200
.78/1.0
.33/.31
.14/.70
.22/.27
none
none
.76/.98
34/.27
.43/.70
.14/.20
none
none
Tu-154
3.1.3
Preliminary Control Surface Design Methodology
This section
outlines
a procedure
to follow
in the ACSYNT
geometry
design
code
for
specification
of the dimensions
of the control surfaces. This begins by picking average geometry
and specifying
the constraints
if the control surface has to be changed to produce
more control
power Average
geometry
is based on fractions
of wing and tail span and chord dimensions.
These terms are maintained
within the default parameter
data base within ACSYNT.
The user
has the option
to override
these default
values
for a particular
design
configuration.
The following
is limited to three classes of aircraft - fighters, business jets, and jet transports.
can be expanded
to include other aircraft classes using the basic methodology
of this study.
3.1.3.1
Ailerons
and spoilers.
These
two surfaces
have been specified.

The flap chord dimension
extended
to define the leading edge and chord
the flap defines the outboard
dimension
of the flap defines
of the average
aileron
surface
are designed
after the wing
planform
and flap
defined by the leading edge of the flap is

of the aileron. Also, the inboard
span dimension
span dimension
limit of inboard ailerons. The outboard
the inboard span dimension
limit of outboard
ailerons.
area is used to define
17
It
the rest of the aileron
details.
span
Thus,
of
choice
a. Fighter aircraft.Assumethat fighter

aileron
surface
area to be 7.6%
1. Set the chord

2. Solve
wing
3.
Solve
dimension
for the aileron
aircraft only have outboard ailerons. Use the average

of the half wing area. Follow the following
steps:
by that of the flap surface
span to produce
the desired
chord.
surface
area, taking
into account
the
taper.
for the outboard
aileron
span dimension.
Determine
that this is within
the wing
half
span limit.
b. Business
jet aircraft. Assume that business jets only have outboard
ailerons. Use the average
aileron surface area to be 5.3% of the half wing area. Follow the same steps as for fighter
aircraft.
c. Jet transport
aircraft. Assume that large category
transports
have only outboard
ailerons and
spoilers.
Use the average aileron surface area to be 3.0% of the half wing area. Then follow
the same steps as for the fighter aircraft in designing
the aileron. For the spoilers, use the
average span and chord dimensions
from aircraft with inboard spoilers only to position and
dimension
the spoilers.
For heavy category transports,

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

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

for two sets of criteria.
state torque
to determine
surface
geometry
and many
other parameters
as discussed
below.
are evaluated
to determine
if they produce
adequate control effectiveness
The fn'st is to determine
if the control surfaces produce
sufficient
steady
for specific flight conditions,

if the aircraft has appropriate
as documented
responsiveness
18
in the Milspecs
during certain
or FARs. The second

dynamic maneuvers
is
whenthe actionsof
the flight control system are taken into account.

The former
constraints.
The latter is referred to as flight control performance
air worthiness
is referred
to as
requirements.
It
includes pilot handling

qualities, gust response,
wing load alleviation,
passenger
comfort,
maneuver
agility, and basic stability augmentation
performance
measures.
The choice of the
prevailing
performance
requirements
depends heavily upon the type of aircraft and its mission.
After the control surfaces are designed,
the associated
control derivatives
or control torque
effectiveness
measures
need to be checked to determine
that the air worthiness
criteria are met.
These
criteria
compute
the control
computed
3.2.1
are described
aircraft;
control.
derivatives.
the control
This is followed
Then,
derivatives
Air Worthiness
It is convenient
below.
the method
by a summary
of the input
that can be followed
data required
by ACSYNT
to
to
is summarized.
Constraints
to refer
to these
constraints
in terms
of attitude
angular
moments
required
of the
i.e., pitch moment for longitudinal

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

moments.
Roskam 6 gives a procedure
for checking
for the required
pitching moment from the elevator or combination
elevator-canard
surfaces. Raymer 1 discusses
the moment equation
for pitch with the requirement
that sufficient
rotation torque is available
for
takeoff at 80% takeoff speed with the most-forward
e.g. This is summarized
below.
The equation
that governs
Cmcg
the pitching
= CL(Xcg
-Xacw)
moment
about
- 17 S h CLh(Xach
the e.g. is
- Xcg)/S
w + other
(3.1)
terms
In Eq. (3.1), the fast and second terms account for the change in the e.g. location on the pitching
moments
caused by the wing and horizontal
tail. The second term includes the effective
tail
moment arm (Xach - Xcg) and the change in tail lift due to elevator deflection
in the term CLh.
The other terms include other moments
caused by the free wing, flap deflection
effect, fuselage,
engine thrust, and other engine rotor effects. For takeoff rotation,
additional
moment terms must
be added due to the upward force of the ground on the main landing gear (accounting
for partial
lift) and the backward
force due to rolling friction. In normal trimmed flight, Eq. 3.1 must equal
zero. For adequate
takeoff rotation torque, the moment due to added lift from full elevator
deflection
must counter the other terms.
In addition
deflection
to providing
adequate
torque, the angle of attack must
so that the total lift force is zero. This can be expressed
be adjusted
as
for a given
(3.2)
CLtotal = CLa(tX + iw) + 11Sh CLh/Sw

The process for assuring
pitching moment torque
that adequate control power is available

from the elevator to provide
while maintaining
trirnmed lift breaks down further into the following:
a. Determine
the governing
control during takeoff.
b. Tabulate
the range
elevator
regulation.
of flight
conditions
Here,
we are assuming
that may prevail
e.g. location,
flap position,
weight, altitude, temperature,
trim equations.
A typical weight-e.g,
envelope
is shown
19
it is the requirement
that must be handled.

etc. that may affect
in Fig. 3.3.
for rotation
This includes
the terms
in the
z CW.L
,,,IN.
.
43
t_
_J
I-3:
%q
ta
ow_
WE
FR.
Euu
(FS)
._ IN.
Figure 3.3 Example
of weight/c.g,
envelope
[Roskam
7]
c. With the data collected

in Step b, plot the aircraft trim diagram. An example
is shown in Fig.
3.4. The steps to generate this plot are detailed in Roskam. 7 However,
from Fig. 3.4, it is
evident
that the boundaries
shown require the zero pitching moment as a function of lift
coefficient
for the maximum
forward and aft c.g. locations
plus the lift coefficient
at
maximum
angle of attack for each of the elevator deflection
settings. This requires that the
control derivative
CL& be known; its computation
is discussed
in Section 3.2.3.
d. From the aim diagram, determine
if equilibrium
flight is possible for the flight conditions
of
interest.
Criteria for acceptance
include that the control surface deflection
is within the range
designed
into the aircraft, the angle of attack is below airplane stall, and the tail (or canard)
are not stalled within the aim-triangle.
20
Figure 3.4
Example
trim diagram
for conventional
aircraft
[Roskam]
3.2.1.2 Aileron produced

moments.
The aileron effectiveness
is established
by the requirement
roll the aircraft at a certain rate, depending
upon the aircraft mission.
For military applications,
the roll requirements
come from the Milspecs;
see Table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Class
Aircraft
Light
II
Medium
10
Heavy
IV A
Fighter-attack,
IV B
Air-to-air
MIL-F-8785
B roll requirements
Type
utility,
Required
observation,
bomber,
bomber,
[Raymer 7]
cargo,
cargo,
primary
trainer
transport,
ASW,
transport
interceptor
Roll
60* in 1.3 s
recon.
45* in 1.4 s
30* in 1.5 s
90* in 1.3 s
dogfighter
90* in 1.0 s
360* in 2.8 s
IV C
Fighter
with air-to-ground
stores
21
90* in 1.7 s
to
For conceptual
design it can be assumed that roll rate can be achieved
constant
aileron deflection.
To solve for the steady rate, use
instantaneously
from
(3.3)
Here, p is the steady roll rate caused by the aileron deflection

t_a. The terms Clp and Clg_a are the
damping-due-to-roll
stability derivative
and the roll power control derivative,
respectively.
To
increase roll rate requires either increasing
the aileron deflection
or increasing
the control
derivative
by enlarging
the surface or moving it further out on the wing.
3.2.1.3 Rudder produced
moments.
The primary constraint
that must be met by the rudder is the
engine-out
case at takeoff. The rudder must produce sufficient
yawing moment to keep the
aircraft at zero angle of sideslip at takeoff speed (1.1 times stall speed) with one engine out and
at the aftmost e.g. location.
Rudder deflection
should be no more than 20* to allow additional
deflection
for control.
Another
aircraft
lateral
must
to holding
which
be able to operate
an 11.5" sideslip
This constraint
Cn
trim condition
is evaluated
should
in crosswinds
at takeoff
be checked
equal
is the crosswind
to 20% of takeoff
landing
speed,
case.
which
The
is equivalent
speed.
by examining
the equation
=N/qSwb
= CnNz tY_a+ (Cnflw + Chief, s + Cnflv)fl-
(TYp + DYp + Fp(Xcg-
(3.4)
Xp))lq Sw
where
Cnflv = CFflv (tgflv/Ofl) Ov Sv (XacvThis latter
yawing
term is the side force
moment
coefficient
caused
arm (Xacv" Xcg) and the change
by the deflected
in vertical
rudder.
It contains
tall lift due to rudder
term CFflv. To increase this force, one can increase the rudder
hinged rudder so that the maximum
deflection
can be greater.
3.2.2
(3.5)
Xcg) / Sw
chord
the
deflection
in the
or span or use a double-
Design Inputs Required
To compute
the control derivatives
requires input from several sources throughout
the ACSYNT
code. This includes
the control surface geometry
and moment arms from the "geometry"
module,
the lumped mass weights and their moment arms to compute moments
of inertia from the
"weights"
module,
and the lift curve slopes of the wing and tail surfaces with aileron, elevator,
and rudder deflections.
The computation
of control derivatives
also requires the computation
of
certain stability derivatives
first. This is depicted
in the program
flowchart
in Fig. 3.5.
3.2.3
DATCOM Methodology
The DATCOM
flight.
The
methodology
following
for Computing Control Derivatives

can be found
is a summary
in Hoak. 8 It is summarized
of computing
22
the relevant
control
in Roskam
derivatives
7 for subsonic
using
this
procedure.The complete
However,
the following
set of plots and charts for encoding

this process are not presented
is sufficient
for outlining the associated
ACSYNT
code.
WEIGHTS
SURFACE SIZES
[AERODYNAMICS
DERIVATIVES
STABILITY
3.2.3.1
3.5 Flow
AUeronlelevon
DERIVATIVES
chart
derivatives.
of input
required
to compute
The three coefficients
control
associated
flight,
the rolling
moment
coefficient
Cl& is computed
derivatives.
with aileron
Cy&, CI&, and Cn&. The side force term Cy& is normally
zero except
the vertical tail, as in the F-106. It will be assumed zero here.
For subsonic
PROPERTIES
Figure
here.
deflection
if the ailerons
using
are
are close to
the following
steps:
1. Compute the normalized

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

fl = (1- M2) 0-5
t = (Clo3M
The term
(Clo3M
of the wing
covered
is the lift curve
_/2]_
slope of the airfoil
by the aileron.
A_
Also,
the sweep
= tan- l(tan
23
(3.6)
Ac/4
(3.7)
at the mean
angle
I_)
geometric
term A/_ is defined
center
of the part
as
(3.8)
Reproduced
from Reference
/
(per rad )
--////
f
Z /
0
O
.2
.4
.o
AILERON LATERAL
Figure 3.5
Aileron
rolling
COORDINATE,
moment
24
parameter
.8
1.0
.mY._= T/
hi2
[DATCOM
8]
2. Denormalize
3. Determine
the coefficient
by multiplying
the effectiveness
by t and dividing
for partial-chord
Clt_a = Iott_al Cl&
ailerons
by ft.
(Ca/C < 1.0) by the equation

(3.9)
'
neFe,
a&z = [(Cld_ Ch_theory)

The
term (CI_/CIStheory)
ratio. The lift curve

the airfoil chosen.
is found
The term (Clo:)a
from Fig. 3.6 as a function
slope ratio parameter
The term Ch_ theory is found

is computed
(Cltx)a
(3.10)
Cl_ theory] /(Cltr)a

of aileron
in Fig. 3.6 is explained
chord
in Roskam;
to wing
chord
it is a function
from Fig. 3.7.

from the lift curve
= Cla/
slope
at the mean
aileron
span as
(1- M2) 0-5
4. The average aileron roll control power derivative

is then found by averaging
the derivative
computed
for the left and fight wing. The aileron deflection
used as the control input is the
average of the deflections
of the left and fight wing ailerons.
Figure 3.6
Correction
factor
for plain
25
flap lift [DATCOM8];
use for aileron
of
4
(c6) theory
(per rad_
3
/
0
.1
.2
Figure 3.7
The yawing
moment
.3
.4
Lift effectiveness
coefficient
Cn& is found
.5
of a plain
flap; use for aileron
as
Cn_a = ga CLw Cl_a

where Ka is found from Fig. 3.8. The parameters
independent
variable is the average span location
wing lift coefficient.
(3.11)
are aspect ratio and wing taper. The

of the aileron. The term CLw in Eq. 3.11 is the
k w "" .25'
i_/_
I I!,
1
-_
I
_./
1_2,
I !!f,i j
0
.2,,'
.4
Yl
%12
.6
.8
1.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Yi
%/2
26
.2
. .4
.6
.It
1.0
.2
.4
Yi
y,
%12
bw/2
.6
.8
B 1Q
1.0
Figure 3.8
Correlation
Constant
To compute
the rolling moment coefficient
data are taken directly from DATCOM:
Supersonic
linear
wing trailing-edge
(using Fig. 3.9):
for Yawing
Moment
for when Mach
due to Aileron
number
exceeds
Deflection.
1.0, the following
theory is used to derive conical-flow

solutions for the rolling effectiveness
of
flap type control surfaces. The theory is based on the following
assumptions
/
/
f
/
\
\
rx,,
\
N
\
\
Figure
5.
3.9
Sketch
of wing flap geometrics
The leading (hinge line) and trailing

(swept ahead of the Mach lines).
The control surfaces
the outermost
Mach
The innermost
chord.
in supersonic
edges
flight.
of the control
surface
are located at the wing tip or are far enough

lines from the control surface from crossing
Mach
The root and tip chords
lines from the deflected
of the control
surfaces
control
surface
are supersonic
inboard to prevent
the wing tip.
do not cross
are streamwise.
Controls are not influenced

by the tip conical flow from the opposite
by the interaction
of the wing-root
Mach cone with the wing tip.
27
the root
wing panel
or
The supersonicrolling effectivenessof plain trailing-edgeflap-typecontrolsis given by
ln=_x--_l
_'TE1_" LnS w "2[-_w T _ 2bw J C Ln]
(3.12)
where
Cl s
is the control-surface
panel,
t_
t
based
effectiveness
on the total wing
is the theoretical
for the following
(a)
rolling
Tapered
of one control
surface
deflected
on one wing
area and span.
rolling-moment
derivative
based
on total control
area
Sf for thin wings
cases:
control
surfaces
with outboard
edge coincident
with wing
surfaces
with outboard
edge not coincident
tip
(use Fig. 3.10).

(b)
Tapered
control
with wing
tip (use Fig. 3.11).

(c)
Untapered
control
(use Fig. 3.12a).
surfaces
with outboard
edge coincident
(d)
Untapered
control surfaces
wing tip (use Fig. 3.12b).
with outboard
edge
Sf
Sw
is the ratio of the total control
area
bf
bw
is the ratio of the total control
span (both
Y.__L/ is the distance

bw
from the wing
(both
root chord
28
not coincident
sides of the wing)
sides
of wing)
to the control
with wing
with
to the total wing
to the total wing
root chord
tip
in wing
area
span.
spans.
1-C__/z)
is a thickness
C1___
correction
factor to the supersonic
4-4(M
2-1)
2(M 2_ 1)2
_b/'E
is the trailing-edge
is the ratio of specific
CI 6
is the lift-effectiveness
(per radian)
angle in radians,
heats,
measured
normal
to the control
hinge
line.
7= 1.4.
of one symmetric,
straight-sided
control.
This parameter
is obtained
from Figs.
and from Fig. 3.14 for controls located inboard
It should be noted
(with the exception
derivative.
(per radian)
(7+l)M
C2=
flat-plate
control,
based
3.13 for controls located

from the wing tip.
that in applying this method the control

of_TE) are measured
in planes parallel
deflection
angle
and perpendicular
on the area of the

at the wing
tip,
and all dimensions

to the plane of
symmetry.
The yawing
function
moment
of Clta
due to aileron
and aileron
deflection
at supersonic
span dimensions.
29
speeds
is found
from
Fig. 3.15 as a
.04
_,,.
_c)
:05
-.4
(per deg)
-.04
-.2_
\
TAN ATE
-.08
I
- TAN
'-.6
A H L
=0
/3
.2
.4
.6
.8
!.0
2kf
.08
.04
(per deg)
0
--2 \2
-.4
TAN ATE
.4 -
-.04
I
TAN AH L
.6
ts
-.08
0
.'2
.4
.6
.8
I .0
Xt
Figure 3.10 [DATCOM]
Roiling moment derivative for tapered control surfaces having

outboard edge coincident with wing tip
30
TAN
AHL
=0
.O4
------=_===.._
(per deg)
0
\
\
-.04
TAN ATE =__
-.08
if
.6
.2
1.0
.8
Xr
.16
TAN AHL
=.6
.12
(per deg)
.08,
".2
.4
-.6
-.04
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
)'r
Roiling moment derivative

for tapered control
outboard edge not coincident
with wing tip.
31
surfaces
having
.08 _
......I.... I --1.....
flc_
(per
deg)
/_.4
.04"
flAf
I0
i
.28
INBOARD
CONTROLS
_NN
TAN ANt
__.
.24
.20
C'
fl 16
(per
deg)
.16'
\
\
k
.12
.6\
k
O"
0
2
Figure 3.12 a and b [DATCOM]
Rolling moment
having outboard
with wing tip
32
flAr
I0
derivative
for untapered
control surfaces
edge coincident
(a) and not coincident
(b)
TAN AHL
(a)
SUPERSONIC
- -0.80
tl
SPEEDS
TAN ATE
.14
/j
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
.2
.4
.6
.8
Xf
1.0
TAN AHL
(b)
---0.60
.12
(per deg)
.06
.04
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Xf
Lift parameter
tip
for deflected trailing-edge
33
flaps located at the wing
TAN AHL
(g)_
0.40
.!0
TXN ATE
-.60
.08-_
_'__.._
-.40 ---(per deg)
.), \
.04 "_
.02 -
Oi
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Xf
TAN A HL
= 0.60
(h)l
TAN A' l _.
.10"-.60
I
.08 -
--....
l
_cL 6
..40 _/'-
.06-
-.20 ----"1" _"_'_
(per deg)
.04
.02 -
I\
I
00
.2
.6
.4
Xf
Figure 3.13 (cont'd.) [DATCOM]
34
.8
.0
.32
.28
_cL_
(per deg)
.1
0
-! .0
-.8
.6
-.4
-.2
.2
.4
.6
.8
l.o
TAN ATF/fl
Lift parameters
from wing tip
for deflected
35
trailing-edge
flaps
located
inboard
w
|
..J
=
Io
_ _--_1_'_--.
m.
I
I
I
_.-_..i_',"'_---._
\
\
I
I
8.
/
/
,,
/
/
',
N \
\'_
o --
/
/
K /
/
/
/
21, /
I/
/
/_.
/
,,4 /
.'/
/
/I. /
"
\ \1 _..- _ .o
/.
o0----
/
o
/
/
<
/
r
g
i
I
I
't.,,
_"_'=-7
"-"x"_
f
%
--
.._.
= :--
I _
i
/
',,,
"\
\
\\.,
'\
/"
\ ,0
I _,X,
\,
\
j_
'X
/\
",
,
\
\
\
_l:.l
,,-,,,\
--It|
Yawing
moment
36
due to aileron
deflection
at supersonic
speeds
3.2.3.2Rudder
derivatives.
Cl& and Cn&. The
The three coefficients
side force coefficient
Cy& = CLav k' Kb (Cl8 / Clttheory)

In Eq. (3.13),
a. CLay
the terms
is found
CLay=
from
are evaluated
deflection
are Cy&,
(Sv / S)
(3.13)
expression:
+ {Aeff2/32/k
/3 = (1- M2) 0.5 or 4(M 2k
ClStheory
with rudder
as follows:
as follows:
the following
2 _cAeff/[2
associated
is computed
2 (1 + tan2Acl2/132)
+ 4} 0"5]
(3.14)
1)0-5
=CLaatM
= CLa (1 - M2) 0.5 for M < 1 or
= 4(M 2 - 1) 0.5 for M > 1.

Ac/2
is semi-chord
Aeff=
sweep
angle.
(Avfl Av) Av [1 + Kvh{ (AvhflAvf)
Av = by 2 / Sv from Fig. 3.2; these

(Avf/Av)
= ratio
(Avhf IAvf)
= ratio
Kvh = factor
b. k' accounts
with and without
for rudder
the fuselage
for relative
deflection
(3.15)
are for the effective
with and without
accounting
- 1 }]
horizontal
tail area.
from Fig. 3.16

tail from
Fig. 3.17
size of tail from Fig. 3.18.
from Fig. 3.19
c. Kb is the rudder
span factor
from Figs.
d. (ClSIClStheory)
is obtained
from Fig. 3.6 as is the case for the aileron
e. ClStheory
is obtained
f. Sv is the effective
3.20 and 3.21
from Fig. 3.7 as before.
vertical
tail area from Fig. 3.2.
37
and flaps.
_'Y_
_"_%,_
Reproduced
Reference
from
A_
by == VERTICAL TAIL
CENTERLINE
2r.
== FUSELAGE
Xv == MEASURED
VERTICAL
DEPTH
.,..
_._
of vertical
rom
tail aspect
TOTH__TO_FTIIE_PANF.L IN THE
..._,._.: o,-+HEBODY
ALONE l
z/,
--
0
0
Figure 3.17
==PA.RAM.ETER
ACC_OUNTING
FOR
n_-bArtv_
I'OSITIONS
OF THE
J
-.2
HORIZONTAL
AND
-.4
Ratio of vertical tail aspect

presence
of fuselage alone
-.6
TAILS
z_/t,v
-.8
ratio in presence
38
2.,
., o.
HORiZONTAL_X_,TAIL
-
"_O
[,
Ir'_'_
I
!
FUSELAGE
.L
I
tail
e---'_
/
/
VER'rICAL
,
to that of isolated
1
.,fir
'
of fuselage
RATIO OF TIIE VERTICAL

PAN,EL
.J
ASPECT RATIO IN THE PRESENCE
OF I
THE HORIZONTAL
TAIL AND BODY
I
4-
TAIL
_/_,_--z
_
ratio in presence
Reference
_,_..,Io.2,o_o! '
^
nv_}
FUSELAGE
OF VERTICAL
f .
Reproduced
_"",.L
IN REGION
FROM
FROMTAPER
FUSELAGE
TAIL
RATIO CENTERLINE
BASED ON SURFACE-
Ratio
MEASURED
== RATIO OF THE ASPECT RATIO OF THE VERTICAL

PANEL IN THE PRESENCE
OF THE BODY TO THAT
OF THE ISOLATED
PANEL
A v
Figure 3.16
SPAN
l
_,
_
.2,
i"
il
CENTERLIN]_
-1.0
of fuselage
and horizontal
tail to that in
Reproduced
from
Reference
8 _
__
Kn y= FACTOR ACCOUNTING
. Vk SIZE OF HORIZONTAL
TAILS
_
f
Sb == HORIZONTAL
FOR RELATIV_
AND VERTICAL
TAIL AREA
SV =" VERTICAL TAIL AREA, MEASURED

FROM FUSELAGE CENTERLINE
br == VERTICAL TAIL SPAN, MEASURED

FROM FUSELAGE CENTERLINE
g_ == VERTICAL
DISTANCE
BETWEEN
HORIZONTAL
SURFACE
ROOT CHORD
AND FUSELAGE
CENTERLINE,
POSITI_
FOR SURFACE
BELOW FUSELAGE
_ENTERLINE
01
Figure 3.18
Factor
which
accounts
for relative
size of horizontal
and vertical
1.0
.6
"20
L.40
I
COPIED
I
FROI_I REF._
0
0
20
40
FLAP DEFLECTION,
Figure 3.19
Correction
factor
for nonlinear
39
60
80
6.t (dcg)
lift behavior
of plain
flaps
tail
|,0
I
!
Kb
I.
0-
Figure 3.20
Procedure
l_o
for estimating
Kb
jS
Kb
,p_
Figure 3.21
.Z
I
,4
i I
.6
.8
i.O
Effect of taper ratio and flap span on Kb.
40
To compute
the roll and yawing moments
due to rudder deflection,
use the geometry
in Fig. 3.22. Here, lv and Zv are the lever arms of the vertical tail aerodynamic
center
to the aircraft c.g.
The coefficient
coefficient
of rolling
moment
Similarly,
the yawing
coefficient)
{ (Zv cos
Cl& is a function
of the side force
moment
a-
coefficient
sin
a)
(3.16)
b } Cy&
due to rudder
deflection
Cn_r
(the rudder
control
stabilizer,
canard
(3.17)
( Iv cos a + Zv sin tx) / b
Figure 3.22
Elevator,
Iv
is
Cn& = --Cy&
3.2.3.3
deflection
Cy& as follows:
Cl&
power
due to rudder
illustrated
with respect
Geometry
for locating
and canardovator
vertical
derivatives.
tail
These
are the control
derivatives
that affect longitudinal
control. The method for computing
these terms are similar
the aileron and rudder terms in that they use the same approach
as used to determine
flap
effectiveness
on a wing section.
to
a. Stabilizer.
Deflection
of the stabilizer
from the trim point causes contributions
to drag, lift and
pitching moment;
the associated
coefficients
are CDih, CLih, and Cmih, respectively.
They are
computed
as follows:
The
drag increment
coefficient
CDih
is
= 2( CLh / lr Ah eh) (CLah)
71h
(3.18)
where
CLh
= lift coefficient
Ah
= horizontal
eh
= 0.5 for fuselage
of the horizontal
tail aspect
tail;
ratio;
mounted
tails
= 0.75 for T-tails;

CLah
= the same
formula
as Eq. (3.14)
applied
41
to the horizontal
tail
//h
= ratio
of horizontal
tail dynamic
pressure
to wing
dynamic
pressure
(3.19)
= [1 - {cos 2 (n: Zh / 2 Zw) } {2.42 (CDow) 0.5 } / (Xh/C + 0.30)]

and
Zh
= x h tan(_
ecl
= 1.62 CLw/_A
ZW
= 0.68 c {CDow (Xh / c + 0.15)} 0.5
CDow
= wing
The lift increment
+ ecl - O_w)
zero-lift
coefficient
drag coefficient
is
(3.20)
Cz,ih = Oh (Sh IS) CLub

The pitching
moment
coefficient
is
(3.21)
Cmi h = - (Xach - Xcg) (S h / S) 77h CLoth

with the lever
arm term
(Xach - Xcg) defined
I_OTE :
in Fig. 3.23.
_ref= xrer/_ E_s

a = xc_/_"
i
x_ h x=______c
h/_"
Figure 3.23
b. Elevator
presented
Definition
of geometric
Control Derivatives.
These
for the stabilizer.
That is,
terms
parameters
are computed
42
for volume
as functions
coefficient
of the terms
just
CD&
= a& CDih
(3.22)
DL&
= oc& CLih
(3.23)
Cm&
O_&
(3.24)
= o_& Cmih
= K b (ClS / ClStheory)
ClS theory (k'/CLah)
(3.25)
(a&L / a&l)
In Eq. (3.25),
Kb is the elevator
(Cl8
span factor
/ Cl8 theory) comes
ClStheory
is derived
k' is derived
from
from Figs.
3.20 - 3.21;
from Fig. 3.6 modified
for the elevator,
from Fig. 3.7;

Fig. 3.19;
CLah is the lift curve
slope
for the horizontal
(a&L / a&l) is the three-dimensional
tail; and
elevator
effectiveness
2.0
factor
1.0J
' I
|
:\
'
|._
\,ll
1.6
.4
"11
a6)C L
.6:
i td,t
from Fig. 3.24..
.2 /,
r
.N I o
.8
1.0
.3 N
|,4
lit..,
1.2
1.0
1.0 0
II
I0
A
Figure
C.
3.24
Effect
of aspect
ratio and flap-chord
Canard Control Derivatives.

These
increment coefficient
due to canard
terms are similar

deflection
is
CDic = 2( CLc / a Ac ec) (CLan)
43
71c
ratio on the 3D flap effectiveness

to those
for the stabilizer.
The drag
(3.26)
Here,
CLc
= lift coefficient
Ac
= canard
ec
= 0.5
Czo_
= the same formula
_7c
=1
The lift increment
of the canard;
aspect
ratio;
due to canard
CLi
The pitching
moment
as Eq. (3.14)
deflection
c =Tlc
due to canard
applied
to the canard
is
(Sc/S)
(3.27)
CLctc
deflection
is
Cmic= - CLac r/c OCacc

+ xcg) Sc/S
Here,
the moment
arm
(Xacc + Xcg) is defined
(3.28)
in Fig. 3.25.
III
_.'0
,_._
5;HC:_t.,,Jk)
C G
Figure 3.25
d. Canardovator.
canardovator
The drag,
are analogous
Definition
lift and pitching
of canard
moments
to that of the elevator
Eqs.
geometric
coefficients
(3.22-3.25).
parameters
due to deflection
of the
That is,
CD&
= a& CDic
(3.29)
CL&
= a& CLic
(3.30)
Cm&
= a& Cmi c
(3.31)
44
3.2.3.4Control
equations
derivatives
derivative
adjustment
subject
to constraints.
In the previous
section,
the
used to compute the control derivatives

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

of the surfaces relative to the aircraft c.g.
If the control
derivatives
characteristics
are not large enough
of those
sections,
to meet the air worthiness
and the moment
constraints
listed
arms
in
Section 3.2.1 or the performance

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

that can be used to perform a preliminary
design of a variety
aerodynamic
control surfaces. It also presented
formulae
to compute
the control derivatives
required
to derive and analyze the aircraft dynamics
and to design flight control systems.
45
of
Inner Loop Control Design
The main driver for the design of a stability and control module for ACSYNT
is the requirement
that it shall provide
a "hands-off"
or "black box" method to compute
feedback
gains for a flight
control system. This is a very difficult requirement
to meet---even
for a conceptual
aircraft m
because of the wide variety of aircraft a designer
can produce using ACSYNT.
In addition, the
dynamical
properties
of a single aircraft can change significantly
over its flight envelope.
For
example,
in the ten case studies done as a part of this work, six had unstable
longitudinal
dynamics
and one had nonminimum
phase dynamics.
For the lateral/directional
dynamics,
one
aircraft has a roll inertia that changes by a factor of three because
of different
fuel loadings for
the flight
conditions
that were analyzed.
Furthermore,
fielded flight control systems are very diverse. 9 The answers to the questions
of
what state variables
must be measured,
how to generate the required
moments
and forces, and
how the measurements
are used to form actuator commands
vary with aircraft, mission,
and
designer
experience.
In practice, flight control design is an iterative,
man-in-the-loop
process
uses several mathematical
techniques.
Qualitative
judgments
are made at every point of the
that
process.
Deflectionj
Law
Control
Setpoint
Actuator
"1
Aircraft
,._
Dynamics
"
+_
I
I
Sensor
Control
system
Measurement
Figure 4.1:
Response
elements
A flight control system comprises

four fundamental
kinds of elements:
aircraft dynamics,
actuators,
sensors,
and feedback
control laws (Figure 4.1). For the purpose of conceptual
design,
we consider
an actuator
to be an aircraft control surface or vectored
thrust, and the hydraulic
or
electric
servoactuator
that moves it. We consider
the sensor to be a measurement
of the aircraft
state variables.
The following
4.1
Dynamics
Aircraft
subsections
discuss
each of these elements
in turn.
The aircraft dynamics used for the control design algorithm

are derived by linearizing
nonlinear
equations
of motion that include forces and moments
due to aerodynamics,
propulsion
and
gravity. The linearization
is performed
at a constant flight condition,
i.e., at a constant velocity
and angular rate. The result is a set of linear, differential
equations
with the stability and control
derivatives
as coefficients.
Table 4.1 defines the standard nomenclature
used in flight dynamics
and Table 4.2 shows
that aerodynamicists
PtlONIglm
p,_f._
_.ANIK
the significant
stability
seem to prefer.
FK_iED
and control
derivatives
in the nondimensional
form
47
PAGE
.....
_Ni _.:i'_
_iOi,u__,-{ _t.AK4(
Table
4.1:
Dynamics
and control
Forces
Velocities
Perturbed
Steady
nomenclature
Distances
&
Moments
& Angles
Forward
Side
Vertical
Roll
;Pitch
Ig
Yaw
The inner loop control design algorithm

uses dimensional
because the physical units are used for performance
metrics and constraints
and for analysis
simulation.
Table
4.2:
The
significant
stability
Longitudinal
4.1.1
Decoupled
and control
Cnp
Cm
Cy r
Clfl
CD 6
Crau
Cyp
Cll _
CL
Cm a
Cy _
Clr
CL u
Cm_
Cnfl
CIp
CL a
Cmq
C.{j
C L i_
C rna
CLq
CDu
CL 6
CD a
derivatives
Lateral
Cy#
CD
and
llr
Dynamics
Equations
4.1 and 4.2 are the longitudinal
and the lateral/directional
dynamics,
respectively,
in
state-space
form. Table 4.1 shows the definitions
of the state variables;
the tSterms are control
effector deflections.
We use the state-space
form because many computational
algorithms
and
computer
tools use this form and because it facilitates
computer
simulation
of the dynamics.
,co,/00)]lx, ]
dw=
z,, zw
M u M w
0
u0+Zq -gsin(Oo)l[ul+lzs ],
Mq
1
0
0
(4.1)
Y, Y, Y,-.o gcos(eo)gsin(Oo)
iY_A
Y4,
"v 1
L aA L aR
Pl
Np
0
0
N r
_rl,-
(4.2)
t-
I01
The derivation of Equations

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

i.e., the state variables in one equation
do not depend on the
state vectors in the other equation.
This is the usual case because most aircraft are bilaterally
symmetric
with respect to the vertical longitudinal
plane and because most steady flight
conditions
put the relative
wind vector
in the same plane.
Cross coupling
has two causes. First, inertial cross coupling
occurs
inerfias and differences
between moments
of inertia are significant
when cross products

and the angular rates
of
are high.
For example,
consider
the moment equations,
Eq. 4.3. When a roll moment, L, is applied, a yaw
moment, N, is produced
by the roll-yaw
coupling
in the first and third equations
of Eq. 4.3 and
the nonzero cross product
of inertia, Jxz. When Ix and Iz are significantly
different
as in modern
fighter aircraft, a pitch moment, M, is also produced.
L=15 Ix-l_Jxz
+QR(Iz-ly)-P
Q Jxz
(4.3)
M =(_Iy +PR(lx-lz)+(P2-R2)Jxz
N =l_Iz-l_Jxz
+e Q(Iy-Ix)+QRJxz
Blakeloek
12 shows how to do a simplified
analysis of inertial cross coupling
for a constant
rate. He first assumes
that the steady velocities
P and U are constants
to eliminate
the roll
moment and forward
force equations.
This yields differential
equations
relating pitch rate,
rate,
side velocity
and vertical
roll
yaw
velocity:
gl+Por_=Mww
+M_
+M qq+M
_E
(Iy-Ix]
f + Poq _z
" =N v v +N rr +N p Po+N '_a_a +N _ _R

(4.4)
+Uor-w
Po=Yv v + Yrr+ Y pPo+ Y ,_a#a + Y aR_R
+v Po-Uor=Zww
+Z v_ +Z qq+Z 8Erie
Blakeloek
further simplifies
the equations
by ignoring the control surface
the aerodynamic
side and vertical forces are zero. The latter assumptions
49
terms and by assuming

are very limiting;
Eqs.4.4 can easilybeput into state-space

form andtheanalysisperformedonthatresult.Note
thatall threecontrolsurfacedeflectionsappearin Eq. 4.4,thusmaking thefeedbackcontrol
problemmorecomplex.Blakelockconcludeswith two examples.The first is an aircraft stable
for all roll ratesandthe secondis anaircraftunstablefor a rangeof roll rates.
In addition
to inertial
cross
coupling,
aerodynamic
cross
coupling
occurs
when
the aircraft
rotates
around any axis except the velocity vector, e.g., body axis roll at nonzero angles of attack. In the
derivation
of Eqs. 4.4, Blakelock
assumed that the principle
axes of the aircraft were aligned with
the stability axes. For nonzero angles of attack, the aerodynamic
moments
are caused by the
wind vector, but are expressed
in the vehicle stability axes. The body axes are inclined to the
stability axes by the steady-state
angle of attack. Hence, the moments
can depend on roll, pitch
and yaw angle, e.g., sideslip becomes angle of attack and angle of attack becomes
sideslip at a
90* roll angle. In other words, terms depending
on 4, 0, and V ought to be included
in
Equation
4-4.
The issue of cross coupling raises significant

modeling
and control questions.
Blakelock's
approach
to inertial coupling during a steady roll is a reasonable
approximation
for conceptual
design, provided
the assumptions
hold. Other maneuvers
will require new derivations.
In the case
of aerodynamic
coupling,
the usual stability and control derivatives
may not be applicable
because they are derived at equilibrium
flight conditions,
either theoretically,
or from wind
tunnel or flight data. These flight conditions
usually have the body axes fixed with respect to the
relative wind. In either case, the control design methodology
proposed
in this report applies,
given the correct data to form a linear, state-space
model.
4.1.3
Dynamics of Case Studies Aircraft
Nine examples
from
responses
possible:
Model
Learjet
Roskam
24 (cases
n were used as case studies
Power
approach
at sea level
Cruise
at 40,000
ft at maximum
Cruise
at 40,000
ft at low weight
747 (cases
approach
at sea level
o Cruise
at 40,000
ft
o Cruise
at 20,000
ft
McDonnell
Douglas
Power
Subsonic
Supersonic
of dynamical
weight
4 to 6)
o Power
the range
1 to 3)
Boeing
to determine
F-4C
approach
cruise
cruise
(cases
7 to 9)
at sea level
at 35,000
ft
at 55,000
ft
The data comprise

the geometry
and inertias, and the lateral and longitudinal
dimensionless
for three aircraft at three flight conditions.
The data are listed
the Appendix.
MATLAB scripts were used to convert to dimensioned
derivatives
and analyze the dynamics
at each flight condition.
Printouts
showing the poles,
natural
frequencies
and damping
ratios
for the longitudinal
50
and lateral
dynamics
and plots
in
showing
checked
the frequency
responses
in each case are in the Appendix.
The MATLAB computations
with the computations
for one flight condition
for each aircraft that Roskam presented.
Table 4.3 summarizes

the results of the dynamics
analyses.
Six of the longitudinal
dynamics and
two of the lateral dynamics
cases were unstable.
The unstable modes are indicated
by negative
numbers
in the table. A negative
(indicates
an unstable second order mode; a negative
"ror a
negative
phugoid
to indicates
an unstable first order mode. The italicized
entries in case 8 denote a
mode that splits into stable and unstable f'n'st order modes at that flight condition.
Table 4.3:
Dynamical
LONGITUDINAL
Phugoid
parameters
for the 9 case
LATERAL
DYNAMICS
Short
studies
Dutch
Period
Roll
rad/s
11
DYNAMICS
Spiral
Roll
fl
fl
i rad/s
rad/s
Sub.
CASE
rad/s
0.239
--0.0589
1.60
0.567
1.03
--0.0542
0.745
0.0296
0.0906
0.0584
2.82
0.352
1.68
0.0347
0.502
0.00119
0.0854
2.95
0.400
2.27
0.0117
2.27
0.00201
--0.132
0.773
0.617
0.752
0.0973
1.15
0.0431
0.173
1.32
0.355
1.02
0.108
0.508
--0.00536
0.101
0.170
0.0343
rad/s
from Roskam.
0.0682
--0.0272
1.24
0.468
1.05
0.119
0.940
0.0171
0.168
-0.135
0.778
0.600
1.81
0.175
1.11
0.0152
-0.0354
0.0448
2.85
0.222
i2.40
0.0482
1.34
0.0131
0.0268
-0.0740
4.86
0.039
2.46
0.0562
0.782
0.00286
The F-4C at supersonic cruise has unstable or nonminimum

phase zeros in the dynamics;
Subsection
4.4.3 discusses
the implications
of this property
for feedback
control. The fastest
mode in all the case studies is the 4.9 rad/s F-4C short period mode at supersonic
cruise; the
slowest mode is the 0.0012 rad/s Learjet roll subsidence
mode at maximum
weight cruise.
4.2
Actuators
Hydraulic solenoids
or electric motors move the control surfaces of modern aircraft. Each of
these actuators
has dynamics
that can affect control system performance.
Furthermore,
these
actuators
are constrained
to move the surfaces only within rate and deflection
limits. The control
surface limits are set to ensure that maximum
deflection
is within the stall limits of that surface.
Typical acceptability
deflection
is typically
criteria are that aileron deflections

less than 25", while double hinge
51
are less than 25 . Single hinge rudder

rudder deflection
is less than 30*.
Gain
Position limit
Rate limit
command
_I
Surface
I_J_'_b"
i_/i ii - o ,t,on
_1_
Figure 4.2
Control
Surface
surface
actuator
model
Figure 4.2 shows a model of the control actuator used to study flight control system design for a
generic fighter aircraft at NASA Dryden.14 In this model, the actuator dynamics
model is a first
order lag with rate limits and maximum
deflection
limits. Here, the first order lag is modeled
as
an integrator
in the forward loop and a gain of 20 producing
a 0.05 see time constant.
Mathematical
models of actuator dynamics can be quite complex.
actuator
model for a stabilizer with both symmetric
and differential
reports
X-29A
actuators
that have
4th order
deg
Gain
Gain
13
dynamics.
8
+15/-25
Figure 4.3 TMshows the

movement.
Also, Bosworth
Surface
dynamics + 1S/-ZS deg
H left
Gain
8Hc_
,_
24 deg/s
8Hright
Gain
8 Dcmnd_.._._+20/-20
deg
24 deg/s
Figure 4.3
Actuator
model
dS;nffa
ace
v[.._
+15/-25
I ,_,j
"- L-_
"-
_,
deg
for the stabilizer
The important
question for conceptual
design is how much faster or slower is the actuator
dynamics
than the aircraft dynamics.
If the actuator response
is faster than the aircraft response,
the actuator dynamics
can be ignored because it will have only a small effect on aircraft
performance.
For performance
evaluation
by simulation
the complexity
also depends
on the
kinds of control surfaces used, as in Figure 4.3. Consequently,
the code for modeling
the actuator
system must be flexible so that more complex models can be added later as the need arises.
Table 4.4 presents
actuator data from Johnston 9 , Bosworth 13, and Brumbaugh.14
Johnston
presents
an uneven accumulation
of block diagrams
of flight control systems for some recent
aircraft. The figures are derived from a variety of sources and present data ranging from names
of hardware
items to transfer functions.
The slowest actuator is the C-5A aileron with a 0.250 s
time constant.
This converts to a 4.0 rad/s bandwidth
which is slower than the F-4C phugoid
mode, but about three times faster than any of the 747 modes. Most of the actuator bandwidths
reported
by Johnston
and Bosworth
are between
10 and 20 rad/s.
52
Exampleactuator
Table 4.4
model
Deflection
Time
Rate Limit
Constant
Aircraft
Type
0.05
F-4
0.10
F-105
0.07
B-52
0.027
C-5A
0.25
KC-135
0.05
B747
Table
4.5 summarizes
the extreme
values
references.
It shows that the case studies
slowest actuators
we found.
Table 4.5:
Extreme
Elevator
Rudder
+ deg
+ deg
+ deg
20.
30
+15/-25
10
7.5
2.2
30.
17.5
30.
30
37.
20.
25
+17/-23
24.
X-29
values
of airframe
have
and actuator
dynamics
of airframe
and actuator
Slowest
Actuator
Dynamics
Dynamics
rad/s
rad/s
Fighter
4.86
6.0
Transport
1.24
4.0
Sources
Roskam
Johnston
Bosworth
Bosworth
Class
dynamics
at least 20 percent
Fastest
Airframe
Aircraft
Limits
Aileron
deg/s
Gen. Fighter
parameters
found
slower
in these
than the
dynamics
Consequently,
the performance
results for the case studies reported
in this document
were
derived under the assumption
that the dynamics
of the actuators
was sufficiently
faster than the
dynamics
of the airframe
that it could be ignored.
The overall actuator lag should be included
as a design variable because actuator
speed
influences
cost, weight, and power; the control design methodology
we propose can easily
accommodate
different
actuator models by including
additional
actuator state variables
to the
aircraft dynamics.
For flight control system (FCS) conceptual
design, the simple actuator model
depicted
in Figure 4.2 is probably
adequate.
The linear ftrst order lag model can be used in the
gain computations.
Rate and deflection
limits on effectors
are also important
because they, along with position
and
area, determine
the effectiveness
(authority)
of the control surfaces. The effect of rate and
deflection
limits on performance
usually is determined
during simulation
analysis rather than the
53
designanalysis.If the control law

specified
performance,
is one of the simplest
4.3
requires rates or deflections

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

aircraft state variables
have dynamics,
generate noise, show biases and
bias drift, and suffer from scale factor errors and drift. These characteristics
of sensors are major
concerns
during the detailed design and analysis of flight control systems. Equation
4.5 shows a
general measurement
model, in which b and bd are the bias and bias drift, Ksf is the scale factor, f
andfd are the scale factor error and drift, v is the noise and the rational polynomial
is the transfer
function of the sensor dynamics.
Xmeasurea=K #(1 +f +f a)Xtru e 1+nls+...+nM

1+d 1s+...+dN
sM
sly +b +ba+v
(4.5)
The dynamics
may cause a lag between the measurement
and the aircraft state variable
measured.
Also, very fast (or very slow) changes in the state variables
may not be measurable.
Noise is a random variation
added to the state variable measured.
This can be reduced by adding
a filter, and, consequently,
more dynamics,
to the signal path. Bias is a constant offset from the
measured
state variable and the associated
drift is a slow change in the bias. A feedback
control
system will follow the bias because it assumes that the sensor is correct. The scale factor error
changes
the gain of the sensor, and the associated
drift is a slow change in this error.
All of these characteristics,
while important
during detailed control system design, can be
ignored when designing
inner loop control systems for aircraft conceptual
designs. First, most
sensors and noise filters have a wider bandwidth,
i.e., are faster, than aircraft dynamics.
Second,
noise can and is typically filtered; an excessively
noisy sensor will not be used, or it will be
augmented
with other sensors. A good estimate of a state variable from several sensors can be
obtained
using methods such as Kalman filtering.
Next, the effect on a feedback
system of bias is
so predictable
that modeling
the bias for a design concept is unnecessary.
Bias drifts depend on
the instrument,
the environment
and on age. The effect of bias can be reduced
by implementing
a
bias estimator
in an extended
Kalman filter. Finally, the scale factor error is usually a fraction of
a percent. The effect on the loop gain is negligible.
The results for the case studies
this report were obtained by assuming
the flight sensors are perfect.
4.4
The
FCS
Design
presented
in
Algorithm
The inner loop control design concept developed

and demonstrated
as a part of this work uses the
linear-quadratic
(LQ) control design methodology
to compute
the feedback
gains. The gains
from this technique
depend on the aircraft dynamics
and design parameters
that can be set by the
designer
or loaded from defaults. After the initial design choices are made, the software then
iteratively
modifies
the design parameters
based on the control system performance
to converge
toward performance
specifications
and satisfy constraints
that, again, are set by the designer
or
loaded from defaults. If the control design does not converge,
possible remedies
are fed back to
the aircraft
design.
54
TheLQ
approach
is used for three reasons.
It is a "hands-off"
Stability
Performance
It is a "hands-off"
gain computation.
is guaranteed.
is traceable
method
to the design
for computing
parameters.
feedback
gains
once
the control
design
parameters
are
set. Default sets can be provided

to start the control design process. The stability of the closed
loop system is guaranteed
when the dynamics
is "controllable"
and "observable."
Controllability
and observability
are mathematical
conditions
that are easy to verify. The stability ensures that
performance
metrics can be evaluated
at each design iteration to provide a basis to change the
control design parameters
for the next iteration.
The effect of changes in design parameters
is
clearly traceable
to closed loop performance
in the time domain. This means that the control
design
process
will converge.
The theoretical
foundations
of the linear-quadratic
method are well documented
in standard
references
such and Kwakernaak
15, and Boyd. 16 The next subsection
gives a brief outline of the
relevant
4.4.1
points.
The Linear-quadratic
Method
The objective is to find a feedback

controller
that minimizes
the integral of a quadratic
cost
function that penalizes
large or long-term
deviations
in the state variables
and the control effort.
Mathematically,
the problem is to minimize
the cost functional
(4.6)
subject
to the constraints
=A x +B u
y =Cx +D u
(4.7)
The aircraft dynamics, Eqs. 4.1 and 4.2, are already in the form
depends
on the stability derivatives
and the flight conditions;
the
derivatives.
The vectors x, u, and y are the state variables,
control
respectively.
If the state variables
are the outputs of interest, the
and the D matrix is the zero matrix. If other outputs such'a angle
sideslip angle, and lateral acceleration,
the C and D matrices
are
derivatives,
and instrument
scale factors.
of Eqs. 4.7. The matrix A

matrix B depends
on the control
variables,
and output variables,
C matrix is the identity matrix
of attack, vertical acceleration,
made up of stability and control
Designers
pick the elements of the weighting
matrices
Q and R to achieve the relative deviations
of the state variables
and the control effort that they want; this is an iterative process that uses the
computations
necessary
to solve the optimization
problem
defined by Eqs. 4.6 and 4.7, and a
simulation
of the resulting
feedback
control system. In actuality,
the exact value of the integral
Eq. 4.6 is irrelevant;
what are important
loop frequencies
and damping ratios.
The optimization
on the solution,
are the time responses
of the simulation
and the closed
problem
is solved by using Eq. 4.8 to compute
a gain matrix,
S, of the algebraic
matrix Riccati equation,
Eq. 4.9.
Kr, that depends
55
in
Kr=-R-1BT
O=SA +A TS-SBR-1BTS
This yields
a linear,
full-state
feedback
(4.8)
(4.9)
+Q
law of the form
u=K,.x
For example,
in the case of pitch control
(4.10)
of the longitudinal
dynamics,
Equation
4.10 becomes
(4.11)
_E = k lu +k 2w +k 3q + k 40 + k 5_ O
where the last term in Equation
4.11 is an integral
error and where d_Eis the elevator deflection.
feedback
term added
to reduce
steady-state
Figure 4.4 is a SIMULAB block diagram of an inner loop control architecture

implementing
kind of feedback
law. The Idux block combines
4 scalar setpoints into a 4-vector;
the vector
measurements
of state variables
from the Aircraft block is subracted
from the setpoint vector
form an error vector. The DeMux block splits the vector into 4 scalars that are multiplied
by
appropriate
gains. The pitch error is integrated
and multiplied
by its gain. The results
multiplications
are summed to form the elevator command
for the Aircraft block.
Mux
cnstantl'_L._
Error
nou,,,,
this
of
to
their
of the
K_..
.......
==l x' = Ax+Bu
_B
State Error _
- [y
0.1 rad Step
_.._
in Pitch
ql_Gain
Elevator" I y = Cx+Du F
Command
Aircraft
Pitch
Pitch Gain
Sum
Integrator
Figure 4.4:
Inner
loop control
architecture
Integral Gain
implementing
a linear,
full-state
feedback
law
The solution of problems

such as the optimization
problem of Equations
4.6 and 4.7 and the
algebraic
matrix Riccati equation,
Eq. 4.9, is possible using standard, commercially-available
software
tools such as MATLAB and MATRIXx. Software
that performs
the same functions
may
be available
in NASA's
COSMIC library.
56
4.4.2
Enumeration of the Steps in the Algorithm
0. The inputs from ACSYNT

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

to report the stability,
time constants,
are used to initialize
and numerator
the control
in Eq. 4.6) and start the control
design
design
zeros
and lateral
eigenvalues,
dynamics
natural
and
in
of the dynamics.
parameters
(the elements
of the Q
process.
For example,
the default longitudinal
pitch controller
has a pitch integral
state to reduce
steady-state
error. Consequently,
Q is a 5 by 5 matrix, and R is a scalar because the elevator is
the only control. The gains are computed
by using weightings
(elements
of the Q matrix) of 1
on the pitch rate, pitch angle and pitch integral, i.e.,
00000
00000
Q = O01
O0
(4.12)
00010
00001
and a weighting
(design
parameter)
on the elevator
R =Z _+M
deflection
of
2/_
(4.13)
This particular
set of design parameters
have proven to be a reliable starting point for control
design iterations
for the nine case studies from Roskam 11 reported here and for an example
from McRuer. 10
2. Gains are computed
using LQ methods and the designated
or default performance
metrics
evaluated
using a fast simulation.
Seven metrics are important
for inner loop flight control
are
design:
percent
rise time
percent
peak
control
surface
peak
vertical
and lateral
closed
loop natural
closed
loop damping
Figure
overshoot
steady-state
4.5 shows
error
deflection
acceleration
frequencies
ratios
the standard
definitions
for the fwst three
metrics
on results
for one of the
study cases. These results use the default longitudinal

pitch controller
design parameters
described
earlier. The response
is to a step change in pitch of 5.7* at 10 s, the standard
test for
the longitudinal
case studies.
57
Boeinl_747
LO Controller
for Power
Approach
42i .............................
t
_ _................i................_
._ ove.il,,,o4_
il................ i................i................_.................i
i_
!i
i
i ................i...............
s_._s.+,,._
0_
0
[ __i
10
Figure 4.5:
.:_
120
30
Standard
3. If a constraint
is violated
used to determine
which
definitions
i ...........
i................
i................
i.................
i...............
i...............
40
50
Time (s)
for overshoot,
or if an optimum
design parameters
60
70
__
80
rise time and steady-state
90
100
error.
is not yet achieved,

a perturbation
procedure
is
cause the most change in the affected metrics. The
procedure
is to perturb each weight twice (e.g., multiply and divide by 100) and compare
sensitivity.
The program
picks the greatest sensitivity
to satisfy constraints
first, and to
improve the performance
second.
the
4. The program
meets or exceeds the required change by taking a large step in the design
weights and backing off a little. After the new weights are computed,
the optimization
process
continues
with step 2. The iteration history is stored and reported to the designer.
4.4.3
Discussion of Case Studies
Controllers
were designed using the LQ approach for the nine case studies from Roskam 11
described
in Subsection
4.1 and for one example from McRuer 1. The performance
of the pitch
controllers
designed
using the initial design parameters
is summarized
in Figure 4.6 and detailed
results
are presented
in the Appendix.
Figure 4.6 shows bar graphs for the pitch overshoot,

rise time, peak vertical acceleration,
and
peak elevator deflection
metrics. Each graph plots the performance
of pitch controllers
for eight
of the longitudinal
case studies. The feedback
gains for each of the controllers
were computed
using the initial design parameters
in Eqs. 4.12 and 4.13. The cases are numbered
as in
Subsection
4.1. The results show that the initial design parameters
are a reasonable
choice to
start a design iteration because the resulting controllers
are stable and their performance
is
reasonable
for a wide range of aircraft and flight conditions.
58
40
--
30
-1-
, i
I
i
I
10
0
0
Case
0.8
r---!
*P'4
0.6
J
0.4
"_
0.2
t_.
_
7o0
[]
10
Results
I0
Case
Case
Figure 4.6:
4
o
<
10
Case
=0
V-
of the longitudinal
pitch control
case studies
with the initial
choice
of design
parameters
The convergence
of the method
was tested
by determining
the sensitivity
of the controller
performance
to changes in the design parameters---the
dements
of the Q and R matrices.
Figure 4.7 shows the effect on four performance
metrics of changing
only the pitch angle weight.
The aircraft is the F-89 example
from McRuer. 1 Both the pitch overshoot
and the rise time
decrease
as the penalty on pitch angle increases.
To achieve this decrease,
both the peak vertical
acceleration
and the peak elevator deflection
must increase. If there were constraints
on vertical
acceleration
or elevator deflection,
graphs such as Figure 4.7 can show the achievable
minimum
overshoot
and rise time. If the minima were not acceptable,
either the constraints
must be
changed,
or the aircraft must be changed.
The graphs indicate
how much
constraints
and how much to increase
the control surface effectiveness.
59
to change
the
20
6l
15
10
Pitch Angle
_
1.4
1.2
500
500
1000
Pitch Angle
Weight
o
Weight
2.5
=o
<
"_
I000
2
1.5
O.8
.p,,q
>
[]
o.6
I
o.40
1000
500
Pitch Angle
Figuro 4.7:
Pitch
control
0.5
0
1000
Pitch Angle
Weight
performance
500
convergence
as functions
of pitch
Weight
angle
weight
Figure 4.6 shows the results for eight of the case studies from Roskam. Case 9, the F-4 at
supersonic
cruise, is not shown because the controller
performance
for the initial design
parameters
was sufficiently
worse than the first eight cases that the performance
metric values
for case 9 would have been off scale. The dynamics
of the F-4 at this flight condition
are called
nonminimum
phase dynamics
because at least one zero of the transfer function has a positive real
part. The existence
of such a zero limits the magnitude
of the feedback
gains. This is a limit
common
to all control design methods, including
classical,
modern and linear-quadratic
approaches.
The LQ method still yields a stable controller;
however,
the performance
is difficult
to improve
without
modifying
the method.
The classical solution to such a problem is to add a compensation

filter that has poles and zeros
with negative real parts to the control loop. The limit on the magnitude of the feedback gains can
be increased by choosing
suitable filter poles and zeros. The LQ approach can be modified by
adding the compensation
filter to the aircraft dynamics in much the same way that the pitch
integral state was added to obtain the controllers
for the case studies.
60
......._.
AileronGains--..__"_
IL
+ I
Aileron
_
Error
Aileron
DeMux
Command r._.._.._
m
I Command
Difference _
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft
3 dps[_
Zero
Mux
Rudder Gains
_+
Rudder
DeMux
Figure 4.8
Lateral/directional
inner
loop flight
control
Rudder
Command
system
for the Learjet
Model
24
Figure 4.8 shows a SIMULAB block diagram of an inner loop flight control system implementing
an LQ feedback
law for the lateral/directional
dynamics
of the Learjet Model 24. The Mux block
combines
5 scalar setpoints
into a 5-vector;
the vector of measurements
of state variables
from
the Aircraft block is subracted
from the setpoint vector to form an error vector. Each element of
the error vector is multiplied
by two feedback
gains--one
for the aileron, and one for the
rudder--to
form two 5-vectors.
The DeMux blocks split the 5-vectors
into two sets of 5 scalars
each. Each set of scalars is summed;
one sum forms the aileron deflection
command
and the
other sum forms the rudder deflection
command.
Both scalar commands
are combined
into a
2-vector
by a Mux block
and sent to the Aircraft block.
Figure 4.9 shows the performance

results for a Learjet Model 24 turn. The objective is to perform
a 3 deg/s turn with a zero sideslip angle. Figure 4.8 shows a 3 deg/s step in the yaw rate setpoint.
This occurs at 5 s in Figure 4.9. The yaw rate shows a 0.5* steady-state
error and the sideslip
angle is 2.5*. Roskam 6 says that a sideslip angle of less that 5* is "acceptable."
The design
parameters
chosen give a reasonable
error. Adding integral control would
compromise
between sideslip and steady-state
yaw rate
decrease the steady-state
errors to much smaller values.
To achieve these results, only the lateral velocity and the yaw rate state variables
had nonzero
elements
in the Q matrix, and all elements of the R matrix were nonzero.
Specifically,
["
R=BTB=
"
" 2
Y6A'_+L6A,
'2
+N6A,
Y ,_,_Y,_ +L a,L ,_ +N ,_AN'_R

and
61
(4.14)
0.10
00
00000
0
O_
010500
(4.15)
00000
00000
Le_
turn
0
Ix0
a_
:=
-2
t_
..=q
-3
==....-.---.d.
50
__
100
50
Time (s)
100
Time (s)
0
4
D
-5
=o
-10
0
*_
"O
-15
.."4
<
-20
0
50
_
0
100
50
Time (s)
Fi0ure ,1.9
Detailed
includes
responses
4.5
3 deg/s
Time
turn performance
results
for the Learjet
results of the longitudinal

and lateral/directional
open loop frequency
responses,
Simulab block
of state variables,
control surface deflections,
Model
100
(s)
24 at flight
condition
3.
case studies are in the Appendix.

This
diagrams,
Matlab scripts, and time
and performance
metrics.
Conclusion
This section
discussed
how aircraft
data such as flight
conditions,
stability
and control
derivatives,
and mass properties
are used to compute equations
describing
the aircraft dynamics.
Longitudinal,
lateral/directional,
and coupled dynamics
were covered. The section also presented
a method for computing
inner loop flight control system feedback
gains and an algorithm
for
improving
the control system performance.
Finally, the results of applying
this methodology
on
several case studies were discussed.
62
Summary
5.1
Summary
The effort
and Recommendations
summarized
in this report
has specified
the overall
process
to include
the inner
loop
flight control system design module in aircraft conceptual

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

2 of this report presented the interface
system design module to the ACSYNT
interface requirements
were discussed.
The user interface
will use default
control
requirements
for adding an inner loop flight
program. Both user interface
and program
design
parameters,
classified
by type of aircraft,
to
promote
rapid design iterations
and to allow aircraft designers
to focus on improving
total
aircraft performance.
A capability
for overriding
any default value can be used to determine
sensitive
the aircraft design is to flight control design parameters.
how
Flight control design requires a mathematical

model of the aircraft dynamics.
ACSYNT
software
modules
must provide
the mass properties,
stability and control derivatives,
and the flight
conditions
used to compute
such models. The control design module must provide ways to
influence
the aircraft design. Two methods for implementing
this are discussed.
Control effector
deflections,
evaluated
performance
metrics, the feedback
gains, and the closed loop dynamics
are
output quantities
5.1.2
that will be of use in either
method.
Control Effector Design
Section 3 of this report outlined the process whereby the ACSYNT

program
could compute
the
geometries
of the control surfaces and the resulting
control derivatives.
The control derivatives
are necessary
inputs to the FCS design process discussed
in Section 4. The control surface
geometry
is necessary
input to computation
of the control derivatives.
Also, this geometry
has to
have certain flexibility
in layout to enable the aircraft to meet air worthiness
and flight control
performance
specifications.
First, considerations
of geometric
constraints
of the wing and tail on aileron, rudder,
design were discussed.
The historic trends in ratios of control surface to wing or tail
areas, chord and span dimension
fractions
are presented
for fighter, business jet, and
transport
aircraft. This is followed
by an outline of the logical procedure
that can be
ACSYNT
to design the control surface geometries.
and elevator
surface
commercial
followed
in
Next, the process required

to compute
the control derivatives,
as based on the DATCOM
method, are summarized
for roll, pitch, and yaw actuation.
It is important
to understand
this
process so that the method used first to design control surface geometries
is set up to produce the
required
inputs for the control derivative
computations.
The air worthiness
constraints
that must
be met in pitch, roll, and yaw control moments
are given as minimums
to be met by the control
derivative
values. This is followed
by a summary
of the DATCOM
process to generate
control
63
derivativesdueto (a) aileronor elevon,(b) rudder,and(c) stabilizer,elevator,canard

canardovator
5.1.3
deflections.
Both
subsonic
and supersonic
computation
steps
or
are given.
Inner Loop Flight Control Design
Section
4 of this report
discussed
the aircraft
dynamics
as the primary
ingredient
in the control
design process,
feedback
gain computation
using linear-quadratic
methods,
a design
incorporating
an LQ method, and the results of a wide variety of case studies.
The dynamics
required
is a composite
of the airframe
dynamics
at the flight
algorithm
condition
of interest,
actuator dynamics
and sensor dynamics.
The section presented
a summary
of actuator time
constants
found in the open literature,
a discussion
of the bounds on the dynamics
of these
actuators
and on the dynamics
of the aircraft used in the case studies and conclusions
on the
relevance
of these bounds to concept design. These results lead to the conclusion
that simple
order dynamical
models for actuators
will suffice for aircraft conceptual
design.
gave a justification
for assuming that the flight sensors are ideal for the purpose
This section
of conceptual
first
also
design.
Next,
control
gain computations
using
linear-quadratic
methods
were described.
These
methods
provide a "hands-off"
or "black box" approach
to the qualitative,
man-in-the-loop
decisions
that
often have to be made during flight control design. The design parameters
in the LQ method-the elements
of the Q and R penalty matrices----can
be related easily to time domain performance
metrics. A design algorithm
that uses this relationship
was outlined.
Finally, this section
presented
the results of some case studies that indicate
that the algorithm
will be effective.
5.2
Recommendations
5.2.1
Work
Immediate Tasks
The next efforts

following
1.
for Further
three
that are required
to implement
an FCS design
module
within
ACSYNT
are the
tasks:
Prototype
the LQ design process for generating
the closed inner loop FCS design. This task
would use a commercial
software program
MATLAB for control system synthesis
off-line
and external to ACSYNT.
The goal is to create a semi-automatic
"black box" procedure
based on the previous
work. The design process would be perfected
added internal to ACSYNT
as a later task. This task would include
a. Develop
and document
the input
scripts
longitudinal
and lateral FCS. These
metrics to drive the design iteration.
produce
the necessary
and templates
before it is permanently
the following
steps:
for designing
inner
loop
make use of the desired closed loop performance

This assumes that ACSYNT
will be modified
to
input variables
and parameters
to drive
the FCS design
b. Use example
stability and control derivatives,
inertias, control actuator
FCS performance
metrics for transport,
business jet and fighter aircraft
dynamics,
and
types to test the
input scripts. Use the FCS design output to test the closed loop performance
aircraft. Develop
the design iteration process to produce the desired control
64
process.
of the
performance.
c. Develop
the logic to direct the FCS design process to account for different
aircraft
dynamics
properties,
mission requirements,
maneuvers,
and user-specified
output
choices. Include the method of specifying
need to change the control authority
(control
surface area, moment arms, etc.), if the closed loop design does not produce adequate
performance.
d. Specify the logic and code for ACSYNT
modification
to compute the control laws and
gains to replace the MATLAB tool and the prototyping process used in steps a-c above.
This would consider use of public domain software modules,
such as those available
from
COSMIC, as appropriate.
e
Develop the algorithms

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

for implementing
the FCS design based on the requirements
specified
in Task 1.d. These algorithms
would be documented
in data flow diagram,
hierarchical
diagram,
and pseudocode
form. Where practical,
specific modules available
to
duplicate
the LQ FCS design process would be developed
or delivered
in C/C++ code form.
5.2.2
After
Intermediate Tasks
the above
FCS design
1.
tasks
are complete,
implementation.
These
there are additional

include
tasks
that are required
to complete
the
the following:
Complete
the design of a flight control system performance
metric module (PMM) to test the
output of the FCS design against some desired aircraft dynamic performance
standards.
This
would require providing
the facility to integrate
aircraft equations
of motion, including
action
of the FCS, in response
to selected aircraft guidance
functions.
The output of this module
would be used to verify the FCS works as predicted
by the design process, to judge the
aircraft performance
relative to given criteria, and to determine if design changes are needed
for performance
improvement.
2.
Develop
the technique
within
individual
mission maneuvers
the PMM for designing

optimal trajectories
to conduct
using the ACSYNT-designed
aircraft with the FCS.
3.
Add
to regulate
feedback
from the PMM
aircraft
design
changes
to meet
performance
requirements.
4.
Specify requirements
a cockpit simulator
5.
Expand
the ACSYNT
and performance
for taking the ACSYNT

design including
for man-in-the-loop
testing of the conceptual
reference
criteria
manual
in the aircraft
to describe
conceptual
65
the FCS and PMM

design.
the methodology
design
process.
to include
output
FCS effects
to
References
Raymer, Daniel P., 1989, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach,
American
Aeronautics
and Astronautics,
Inc., Washington,
D.C., ISBN 0-930403-51-7.
Hill, G.C.,
1992, "Improving
Designer
Producu "vi ty, " NASA
Moore, M., and Samuels,

J., 1990, "ACSYNT-Aircraft
Research
Center, Advanced
Aircraft Group, Systems
Gwarmey,
J.D., Hunter, C.G., and Sorensen,
J.A., 1992, "Comparison
Methods
Employed
by ACSYNT
and TASP," Report No. 92121-01,
Incorporated,
1310 Hollenbeck
Ave., Sunnyvale,
CA 94087.
Roskam,
J., 1988, Airplane
Performance
Engineering
and Power
USA.
10 McRuer,
11 Roskam.,
Aviation
12 Blakelock,
Airplane
14 Brumbaugh,
Control
and
Roskam
Aviation
and
Flight Control
revised.
University
I., and Graham,
Press,
Princeton,
D., 1973, Aircraft

N.J., ISBN
Dynamics
Ottawa,
Thrust
Kansas,
Division,
D.E., 1975, "Flight Control Systems Properties

and Problems,
Volume
Compendium,"
NASA CR-2501,
February
1975, Contract NAS 4-1881.
Air
II--Block
and Automatic
Control,
0-691-08083-6.
J., 1979, Airplane

Flight Dynamics
and Automatic
Flight
and Engineering
Corporation,
Ottawa, Kansas, USA.
John H., 1991, Automatic

Control of Aircraft
and Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-50651-6.
13 Bosworth,
Design and
Corporation,
of Stability,
et al., 1978, "USAF Stability and Control Datcom,"

Dynamics
Laboratory,
WPAFB,
Ohio, 45433-0000,
D., Ashekenas,
Princeton
Ames
Design, Part VI: Preliminary

Calculation
of Aerodynamic,
Roskam Aviation
and Engineering
Corporation,
Ottawa,
Characteristics,
Hoak, D.E.,
Force Flight
Johnston,
Diagram
Part VII: Determination
NASA
of Design and Analysis

Seagull Technology,
Configuration
and Engineering
Characteristics:
FAR and Military Requirements,
Corporation,
Ottawa, Kansas, USA.
J., 1987, Airplane
Roskam,
Wiley
Design,
of
TM-103929.
Synthesis
Program,"
Analysis
Branch.
Roskam, J., 1989, Airplane Design, Part H: Preliminary

Integration
of the Propulsion
System, Roskam Aviation
Kansas, USA.
Institute
Controls,
and Missiles,
J.T., 1992, "Linearized

Aerodynamic
and Control Law
and Comparison
with Flight Data," NASA TM-4356.
second
Models
Part I, Roskam
edition,
John
of the X-29A
Randal W., 1991, "An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge,"
AIAA Paper No. 91-2631,
AIAA Guidance,
Navigation
and Control Conference,
12 August
1991, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Also, NASA Contractor
Report 186019, Contract
NAS 2-12722.
15Kwakemaak,H., andSivan,R., 1972,Linear
Optimal
Control
Systems,
John Wiley
Inc.
16 Boyd, S.P., and Barratt, C.H., 1991, Linear
Prentice-Hall,
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, ISBN
Control Design:
0-13-538687-X.
Limits
of Performance,
and Sons,
Appendix
This Appendix
contains
the data, MATLAB scripts, and the results of the nine case studies
performed
as a part of this work. The data and some flight dynamics
equations
are presented
the form of photocopies
subsequent
computations.
1. Flight
2.
dynamics
Conversions
3. Dynamical
4.
Boeing
5.
McDonnell
6. Learjet
from Roskam. 1 This is done to establish

a uniform
The following
are the contents of the Appendix.
nomenclature
equations
from
dimensionless
parameter
computation
to dimensioned
and frequency
stability
response
and control
derivatives
scripts
747
Douglas
Model
7. Linear-quadratic
Some of the explanatory
independent.
F-4C
24
control
results
text in Sections
3, 4, and 5 is repeated
69
to make
those
sections
in
for the
more
A.1
Flight
Dynamics
Equations
71
I:_qBGB_qI_I6 PAGE
BLANK
NOT
FILMED
Table
6.4
g0cos81
= -
Development
Derivatives
+ Xu
of the Lonsitudlnal
and Matrix
Format
u +
- Ulq
= - gGsinO
= MuU
+ M T u + M_
--X
Tuu +
I + ZuU
+ MT
Small
Perturbation
Equations
X a + X_E_ E
Zeu
in Dimensional
a)
Z'_u + Zqq
_ + M-_a + Mqq
of Motion
b)
Z_E_ E
(6.72)
c)
+ M_E_ E
Equations
(6.72)
after
taking
(s- xu - xT) u(s)
the
Laplace
Transform:
-x=(s)
g cosele(S)
X_E_E(S)
- ZuU(S)
{s(U1 - z_) - z }_(s)
- (Mu+M T)u(s)
- {M.=s+M_+M
T }_(s)
Equations
{-(Zq
+ Ul)S
gsinel}O(s)
(S 2 - MqS)e (s)
in Matrix
Format
Z_E6E(S)
M6E_E(S)
(1
(6.73)
(6.73)
:
m
mm
u(s)
(s-x
-x T )
-x
LL_
g cos81
_E(S)
-Z
{s(U 1-
- (Mu+ _)
zs) - z )
-{M.s_,+M=+_
u
. =(s)
{-(Zq
+ Ul)S
+ g sing I}
e(s)
6E(S)
(s 2 - MqS)
C_
m
(6.74)
v_
6E(S)
M
v_
Table
6.9
+ Ulr
Development
Dimenslonal
= gcSSl
of the Lateral-Directional
SmallPerturbationEquations
Derivatives
andMatrix
Format
+ Y88
+ YpP
+ Yrr
+ Y_A6A
ofMotion
in
a)
+ Y6R_ R
I
xz
-Alr
LB8
Lpp
+ Lrr
L_A_ A
AI = _
L6R_ R
b)
(6.141)
xx
I
XZ
BIP
= N88
Equations
NT8
(6.91)
after
(sU1 - YS)S(s)
- LsS(s)
-(N 8 + NTs)8(s)
Equations
TsU I - YS)
8 +
(6.92)
N r +
r
N6A6A
taking
the
Laplace
B1 = y---
N6R_R
Transform:
+ S(Ul - Yr)_(s)
+ (s2 - LpS)(s)
- (s2A 1 + SLr)_(s )
- (s2B 1 + NpS)(s)
Matrix
c)
zz
-(SYp + gcosel)(s)
in
-(SYp
Npp
(6.142)
(s2 - SNr)_(s)
Format:
+ gcos8 I)
s(U I - Yr )
(s___l)
B
a(s)
Y6
J
-L 8
s2 - LPs
-(s2A 1 +
SLr)
:.,
L6
I
!
.I>
.L-0%
- N 8- NT8
Note:
-(s2B 1 + NpS)
6:_ A for
aileron
_=_R
rudder
for
response
response
(s 2 -
SNr)
calculations
calculations
a(s)
N6"
(6.143)
A.2
Conversions
Derivatives
PAG_E _,ANK
from
_T
Dimensionless
to Dimensioned
FI__ME_
?5
Stability
and Control
Table
6.3
Longitudinal
Dimensional
- ql s(cDu + 2CDI)
=
u
mU 1
Stability
Derivatives
(sec -I)
IS(Cz + 2Cz )
Xu
XT
Xl
(X
(sec-l)
mU1
Iyy
m
-qlS(CDa
(ft
qlSCCmT
- CLI)
X(x
(sec -2)
sec -2)
MT
(sec -2)
I
YY
- qlSCD_E
Xg E
sec -2
(ft
ft
or
sec-2deg
-1)
qlS_2Cm
qlS(CLu
Mo
2CLI)
.
a
(sec-l)
(sec -I)
2IyyU 1
(sec -I)
mU I
ql S(CLa
Z
qlS_2C m
CDI)
(ft
sec -2)
21yyU I
qlSCL, c
o
(ft
_--.
r_
sec -I)
qlSCCm_E
2mU I
M_E
lyy
(sec -2
or
sec-2deg-l)
qlSCL
Z
qlSCL_E
Z6 E
m
m
sec -I)
(ft
sec -2
ft
or
sec-2deg
-I)
qlSC(Cmu
M
(ft
2mU I
2Cml)
(ft -I
sec -I)
lyyU I
_isc(Cmzu+ 2cmzl)
(ft -I
NTu
sec -I)
IyyUI
CHAPTER
413
Table
6.8
Lateral-Directional
Dimensional
Stability
qlSbC
qlSCy B
Y8
Derivatives
_A
(ft
sec -2)
L6A
(sec-2-2 or
sec
deg -I)
xx
qlSbCyp
Yp
2mUl
(ft
qlSbC6R
sec -I)
-2
(sec
L6 R
xx
sec
(sec-2)
or
-2
deg -1)
qlSbCy r
(ft sec -I)
Yr
2mU 1
N8
ql SC
qlSbCn
I
zz
-2
Y6A
(ft
sec
or
ft
sec
deg -I)
qlSbCn
Y6 A
T8
NT
= ql Sc
-2
-2
Y6 R
Y6 R =
(ft sec
ft
sec -2
or
qlSb2Cn
deg -I)
N
=
P
qlSbC
I
LS=
(sec -2)
Izz
(sec -I)
(sec-l)
21zzU I
(sec-2)
qlSb2Cn
xx
N
21zzUl
qlSb2C
L
=
P
(sec -I)
21xxU 1
qlSbCn6A
-2
(sec
N6A
I
ZZ
qlSb2C
Lr =
21xxUl r
sec
or
-2
deg -I)
(sec-l)
qlSbCn_R
N_R
CHAPTER
-2
(sec
I
zz
see
or
-2
deg -I)
445
A.3
Dynamical
Parameter
Computation
and Frequency
Response
Scripts
The contents of this subsection

of the Appendix
are MATLAB scripts to compute
natural frequencies,
damping ratios and frequency
responses
of aircraft for
longitudinal
dynamics
lateral/directional
The variables
used in
A.6. The eigenvalues
the poles of the system
imaginary,
the scripts
the eigenvalue
is less
eigenvalue.
dynamics
these scripts are created by the scripts listed in Subsections
A.4, A.5, and
of the dynamics
are also called the roots of the characteristic
polynomial
or
transfer function. When the eigenvalues
are real, rather than complex or
return a damping ratio of-1 if the eigenvalue
is greater than zero and +1 if
than zero, and a natural frequency
that is the absolute value of the
The numerical
print outs and the graphs
Subsections
A.4, A.5, and A.6.
P_
eigenvalues,
PAGE i_.ANK
NOT
of the frequency
FMJVIED
79
responses
for each
aircraft
are in
OPEN
LOOP
%Print
ANALYSIS
eigenvalues
%natural
%and
OF
("ev
frequencies
damping
evfcl=eig
[Wnfcl,
AIRCRAFT
flight
("Wn
ratios
LONGITUDINAL
("Z
conditions
flight
flight
DYNAMICS
i,
conditions
2,
i,
conditions
i,
and
2,
2,
3"),
and
and
3"),
3").
(Afcl)
Zfcl
evfc2=eig
] =damp
(Afcl)
(Afc2)
[Wnfc2,Zfc2]=damp(Afc2);
evfc3=eig(Afc3)
temp='NATURAL
temp
[Wnfcl
FREQUENCIES';
Wnfc2
Wnfc3]
temp='DAMPING
RATIOS';
temp
[Zfcl
Zfc2
Zfc3]
%Compute
and plot
%The
input
matrix,
%minus
signs
%directly
so
to
aircraft
Bfc?,
that
the
longitudinal
and the
direct
phase
angles
frequency
response.
term
matrix,
Dfc?,
can
be
have
compared
MA&G.
om=logspace(-4,2,512);
iu=l;
[mgfcl,phfcl]
BODE(Afcl,-Bfcl,Cfcl,-Dfcl,iu,
[mgfc2,phfc2]
BODE(Afc2,-Bfc2,Cfc2,-Dfc2,iu,om);
om);
[mgfc3,phfc3]
BODE(Afc3,-Bfc3,Cfc3,-Dfc3,iu,
om);
clg;subplot(211);
for
io=1:4,
loglog(om,
[mgfcl(:,io),mgfc2(:,io),mgfc3(:,io)]);
xlabel('Frequency
(tad/s)');
ylabel('Magnitude');
if io==l,
title('Longitudinal
Pitch
else
Angle'),
if io==2,
to Angle
else
if
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
to
title('Longitudinal
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Elevator
of Attack'),
io==3,
title('Longitudinal
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Elevator
Frequency
Response:
Elevator
to Forward
Speed'),
else
title('Longitudinal
Aircraft
Vertical
Acceleration'),
end;end;end;
semilogx
Elevator
(om,
[phfcl
xlabel('Frequency
ylabel('Phase
( :, io) ,phfc2
(rad/s)
(deg)
( :, io) ,phfc3
( :, io) ] ) ;
') ;
') ;
pause;
end;
i i- _ _
80
to
OPENLOOP
%Print
ANALYSIS
OF
eigenvalues
%natural
%and
("ev
frequencies
damping
AIRCRAFT
flight
("Wn
ratios
("Z
LATERAL
conditions
flight
flight
DYNAMICS
I,
conditions
conditions
2,
i,
I,
and
2,
2,
3"),
and
and
3"),
3").
evfcl=eig(Afcl)
[Wnfcl,Zfcl]=damp(Afcl);
evfc2=eig(Afc2)
evfc3=eig(Afc3)
temp='NATURAL
temp
[Wnfcl
FREQUENCIES';
Wnfc2
Wnfc3]
temp='DAMPING
temp
[Zfcl
RATIOS';
Zfc2
%Compute
Zfc3]
format
and
short
plot
aircraft
longitudinal
frequency
response.
om=logspace(-4,2,512);
for
iu=l:2,
[mgfcl,phfcl]
BODE(Afcl,Bfcl,Cfcl,Dfcl,iu,
om);
[mgfc2,phfc2]
BODE(Afc2,Bfc2,Cfc2,Dfc2,iu,
om);
[mgfc3,phfc3]
BODE(Afc3,Bfc3,Cfc3,Dfc3,iu,
om);
clg;subplot(211);
for
io=1:4,
loglog(om,
[mgfcl(:,io),mgfc2(:,io),mgfc3(:,io)]);
xlabel('Frequency
(rad/s)');
ylabel('Magnitude');
if
io==l,
if
iu==l,
title('Lateral
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Aileron
else,
title('Lateral
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Rudder
title('Lateral
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Aileron
else,
title('Lateral
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Rudder
if iu==l,
title('Lateral
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Aileron
else,
title('Lateral
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Rudder
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Aileron
Aircraft
Frequency
Response:
Rudder
to
to
Sideslip'),
Sideslip'),
end;
else
if
if
io==2,
iu==l,
to
to
Roll
Roll
Angle'),
Angle'),
end;
else
if
io==3,
to
to
Yaw
Yaw
Angle'),
Angle'),
end;
else,
if
iu==l,
title('Lateral
to
Lateral
Acceleration'),
else,
title('Lateral
Acceleration'),
81
to
Lateral
end;
end;end;end;
semilogx(om,
xlabel('Frequency
ylabel('Phase
[phfcl(:,io),phfc2(:,io),phfc3(:,io)]);
(rad/s)');
(deg)');
pause;
end;end;
82
A.4
Boeing
The contents
747
of this section
Stability
and control
MATLAB
script
MATLAB
eigenvalue,
of the Appendix
are:
data
to form longitudinal
natural
dynamics
frequency
and damping
print out from
script
for longitudinal
print
script
for lateral
dynamics
Frequency
MATLAB
responses
script
of longitudinal
to form
lateral
MATLAB eigenvalue,
dynamics
natural
Frequency
of lateral
responses
dynamics
dynamics
frequency
and damping
out from
dynamics
The stability and control data are photocopies

from Roskam.1
The data were entered into
MATLAB scripts to form the state-space
differential
equations
and lateral
dynamics.
Two additional
scripts, one for longitudinal
dynamics
and one for lateral dynamics,
were written to compute eigenvalues,
damping
ratios, and frequency
responses
for the dynamics.
These scripts are listed in Section A.3.
The conversions
from dimensionless
to dimensioned
were done
three at a time by first making each parameter,
and control derivative
a
3-vector-----one
element
for each flight condition.
The conversion
computations
are then
performed
using vector arithmetic.
The state-space
matrices
were formed from the appropriate
elements
of each vector.
E.2=Ax +Bu
y=Cx+Du
(A-l)
Equation
A-1 is an intermediate
form for the state-space
equation
that was formed because some
depend on the derivatives
in the case of the longitudinal
dynamics
and because of the roll/yaw
coupling in moment equations
in the case of the lateral
dynamics.
The final form is obtained by multiplying
the first equation of the pair by the inverse
of E.
The frequency
The line styles
response
graphs show three traces----one
for each of the three
for the Boeing 747 cases denote the following:
Solid:
power
approach
at sea level
Dashes:
cruise
at 40,000
ft
Points:
cruise
at 20,000
ft
83
flight
conditions.
C6
DATA
FOR AIRPLANE
Figure
C6 shows a three-view
representative
of large wide-body
and control
derivatives
for this
for Airplane
jet-transport
airplane
are
F.
This airplane
is
airplanes.
Stability
presented
in Table C6.
.25_
ES.1339.9
MGC
B.L.491
50'
I00'
ES.3OZ9
ES. li39.9
FRL
W.L. 199.8
_
"C,L-;
Cl
_
2.5
W.L.II6
TL
l'C,;-C_O0 O0
Figure
C6
Three-View
APPENDIX
of
Airplane
634
Table
Flight
Stability
and
Control
(ft)
Density
(slugs/ft
Speed
(fps)
Center
of
Initial
Gravity
Attitude
Geometry
and
(Xcg)
(ft 2)
Wing
Span
(ft)
Wing
Mean
Geometric
Power
Cruise
Approach
(High)
Cruise
(Low)
Sealevel
40,000
20,000
002389
000588
001268
221
871
673
.25
.25
.25
5,500
Chord
2.4
2.5
5,500
5,500
(ft)
196
196
196
27.3
27.3
27.3
636,636
636,636
564,000
(ibs)
(slug
Airplane
Inertias
Area
Ixx B
for
8.5
(deg)
Wing
Weight
3)
Deirvatives
Condition
Altitude
Air
C6
13.7
106
18.2
106
18.2
106
30.5
x 106
33.1
x 106
33.1
x 106
43.1
106
49.7
106
49.7
x 106
.83 x
10 6
.97 x
10 6
ft 2)
Iyy B (slug
ft 2)
(slug
ft 2)
(slug
ft 2)
zz B
I
10 6
.97 x
xz B
Steady
State
Coefficients
.52
.40
.263
045
.025
.263
.045
025
1.76
CL I
CD I
CT
C XI
mI
C
mT I
APPENDIX
635
Table
C6
Stability
Longitudinal
and
Control
Derivatives
Derivatives
for
Airplane
(Cont.)
2
- .09
071
3
+.013
m
u
-1.45
-I. 60
-i.00
-9.0
-4.0
-25.5
-20.5
-33
m.
-21.4
C
m
q
C
-.23
+.13
5.5
4.4
8.0
7.0
7.8
6.6
mT
u
mT
-.22
CL
u
5.67
CL
--6.7
CL .
5.65
CL
q
1.13
CD
.22
CD
.20
.50
0
0
CTx
u
.36
30
.32
CLUE
0
CD6E
C
0
_J
-1.40
-i. 20
0
-i. 30
m6 E
APPENDIX
636
Table
C6
Stability
Lateral-Directional
and
Control
Derivatives
Derivatives
for
Airplane
(Cont.)
-.281
-.095
-.160
-.502
-.320
-.340
C_ B
C_
P
C_
.195
.200
.130
.053
.014
.013
.005
.008
.210
.160
C_A
0
C_6R
C
nB
C
.184
-.222
+.020
-.026
-.36
-.33
-.28
+.0083
-.0028
+.0018
n6 A
C
-.113
-.095
-.i00
-.90
-.90
P
C
n r
n6 R
-1.08
C
YB
C
Yp
C
Yr
Y6 A
.179
.060
.120
Y6 R
APPENDIX
637
%LONGITUDINAL
%Boeing
DYNAMICS
747,
sea
level--power
40,000
ft--high
20,000
ft--low
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
<--fcl
cruise
altitude
<--fc2
cruise
<--fc3
1979,
Flight
I,
approach
altitude
pp.
Dynamics
and
Automatic
Flight
Controls,
616-642
format
short
%Enter
flight
condition,
geometry,
g=32.2;
mass
and
MOI
%gravity
parameters.
(ft/s^2)
theta0=[8.5
rho=[.002389
2.4
2.5]*pi/180;
.000588
.001268];
%equilibriumpitch
Uo=[221
673];
%equilibrium
871
%density
mass=[564000
Ixx=[13.7e6
636636
18.2e6
636636]/g;
18.2e6];
%weight
Iyy=[30.5e6
Izz=[43.1e6
33.1e6
49.7e6
33.1e6];
49.7e6];
%pitch
Ixz=[.83e6
.97e6
S=[5500
b=[196
5500
196
cbar=[27.3
%Enter
%wing
27.3];
steady-state
.52
.045
CTxi=[.263
-.09
product
of
area
(ft^2)
%wing
span
(ft)
%mean
geometric
Cmad=[-3.3
-9.0
Cmq=[-21.4
0
CmTa=[0
control
derivatives
-20.5];
0];
0];
CLu=[-.22
-.23
CLa=[+5.67
CLad=[6.7
+5.5
+4.4];
8.0
7.0];
CLq=[5.65
7.8
6.6];
CDa=[I.13
.50
.20];
CDu=[0
.22
CTxu=[0
0];
CLde=[.36
CDde=[0
.30
0];
+.13];
0];
Cmde=[-l.40
.32];
-1.20
0
derivatives.
-i.00];
0];
0];
-1.30];
%No
numbers
in
Roskam
%No
numbers
in
Roskam
dimensioned
stability
and
qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;
88
ft^2)
ft^2)
inertia
chord
control
-4.0];
-25.5
CmTu=[0
and
+.013];
-1.60
%Compute
(slug
.025];
Cma=[-l.45
inertia
ft^2)
(slug
.025];
stability
(ft/s)
(slug
inertia
0];
Cmu=[.071
CDq=[0
inertia
coefficients.
dimensionless
CDad=[0
speed
0];
0
(deg)
(ibs)
.40];
.045
CmTI=[0
%cross
196];
CDI=[.263
%Enter
.97e6];
27.3
%yaw
5500];
CLI=[1.76
Cml=[0
%roll
angle
(slug/ft^3)
(ft)
(slug
ft^2)
Xu
=-qbar.*S.*
XTu=
Xa
(CDu+2*CDI)
. / (mass.*Uo)
qbar.*S.*(CTxu+2*CTxl)
Zu
*S. * (CDa-CLI)
r. So *CDde./mass
---qbar. S.* (CLu+2*CLI)
Za
=-qbar.
---qbar.
./mass;
;
Xde=-qba
S.*
Zq
. / (mass.*Uo)
(CLa+CDI)
./mass;
S.*CLad.*cbar.
Zad=-qbar.
./(mass.*Uo);
/ (2*mass.*Uo)
=-qbar.
S. *CLq. *cbar.
/ (2*mass.*Uo)
Zde=-qba
r. S. *CLde./mass;
Mu = qbar. *S.*cbar.*(Cmu+2*Cml)./(Iyy.*Uo);
MTu =
qbar.*S.*cbar.*(CmTu+2*CmTl)./(lyy.*Uo);
Ma
qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cma./Iyy;
MTa=
qbar.*S.*cbar.*CmTa./Iyy;
Mad=
qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmad./(2*Iyy.*Uo);
Mq
=
Mde=
qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmq./(2*Iyy.*Uo);
qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cmde./Iyy;
%Compute
Afcl=
dynamics
for
[
Xu(1)+XTu(1)
-g'cos
(theta0
(theta0
Efcl=
[
1
0
Za (i)/Uo
(i) ; Zde
(I)
Ma (I)/Uo
0
(i)
Uo (I) +Zq
(I) ;Mde
(i) +MTa
form.
(I)
i];
(1) /Uo
(I)/Uo
(I)
Mq(1)
1
(i) ; 0] ;
l-Zad(1)/Uo(1)
-Mad
state-space
in
(i))
0
];
[Xde
(i))
Mu (i) +MTu
Bfcl=
condition
Xa(1)/Uo(1)
Zu(1)
-g'sin
flight
(1)
Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
matrix
attack
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfcl=[
i/Uo(1)
Afcl(2,:)-[0
0 Uo (i)
0]
];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,1)=Bfcl(2,1);
%Compute
dynamics
for
flight
condition
Afc2=[
89
in
state-space
form.
Xu (2) +XTu
Xa (2)/Uo
(2)
-g'cos
(theta0
Zu (2)
-g'sin
(theta0
(2))
Mu (2) +MTu (2)
0
];
Bfc2=
[Xde
Efc2=
(2)
(2))
(2) ; Zde
Za (2) /Uo (2)
Uo (2) +Zq
Ma(2)/Uo(2)+MTa(2)/Uo(2)
0
Mq(2)
1
(2) ;Mde
(2)
(2) ; 0] ;
l-Zad(2)/Uo(2)
0
0
-Mad(2)/Uo(2)
1
0
0
1
];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
matrix
attack
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc2=[
0
i/Uo(2)
Afc2(2,
:)-[0
0]
0 Uo(2)
];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2;
Dfc2(4,1)=Bfc2(2,1);
%Compute
Afc3=
dynamics
for
flight
condition
in
state-space
form.
[
Xu(3)+XTu(3)
-g'cos
(theta0
Zu(3)
-g'sin
Za (3)/Uo
(theta0
(3))
Mu (3) +MTu (3)
0
];
Bfc3
= [Xde
Efc3=
[
1
0
0
(3) ; Zde
(3)
Uo (3) +Zq
Ma(3)/Uo(3)+MTa(3)/Uo(3)
0
(3) ;Mde
(3) ; 0] ;
l-Zad(3)/Uo(3)
-Mad(3)/Uo(3)
0
1
0
0
0 0
];
Xa(3)/Uo(3)
(3))
0 1
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
9O
Mq(3)
1
(3)
0
0
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
matrix
attack
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc3=[
0
0
1
I/Uo(3)
0
0
0
0
0
Afc3(2,:)-[0
0 Uo(3)
0]
];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,1)=Bfc3(2,1);
91
%LONGITUDINAL
%Boeing
DYNAMICS
747,
sea
RESULTS
level--power
40,000
ft--high
20,000
ft--iow
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
E I GENVALUE
evfcl
<--fcl
cruise
altitude
cruise
Dynamics
and
Automatic
616-642
-4.7750e-01+
6.0834e-01i
-4.7750e-01-
6.0834e-01i
2.2462e-02+
1.6854e-01i
2.2462e-02-
1.6854e-01i
evfc2
-4.6988e-01+
1.2370e+00i
-4.6988e-01-
1.2370e+00i
-5.9712e-03+
3.3808e-02i
-5.9712e-03-
3.3808e-02i
evfc3
=
-5.8206e-01+
1.0971e+00i
-5.8206e-01-
1.0971e+00i
1.8563e-03+
6.8193e-02i
1.8563e-03-
6.8193e-02i
NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
7.7336e-01
1.3232e+00
1.2420e+00
7.7336e-01
1.3232e+00
1.2420e+00
1.7003e-01
3.4331e-02
6.8218e-02
1.7003e-01
3.4331e-02
6.8218e-02
6.1744e-01
3.5510e-01
4.6866e-01
6.1744e-01
3.5510e-01
4.6866e-01
-1.3210e-01
1.7393e-01
-2.7211e-02
-1.3210e-01
1.7393e-01
-2.7211e-02
DAMPING
<--fc2
<--fc3
1979,
Flight
I,
approach
altitude
RATIOS
92
Flight
Controls,
:0[
III
[0[
I
IIII
tO[
o0[
I
III
i|
vO[
l i |
[OI
|
Ill
_0(
l
00_--
",
- OOI_,
,__---------._....''":
.................
Ct_
.......
- OOI
Ox_
Ill
,,,,, , , , ,
os!mD opm!llV
.....
,,i,.,.,..,..,....."
00_
OOE
,,,"
""'
' ' ' '
""'
' ' ' '
""'
' ' '
A_Oq pug q_!H ptm 'q:3_o.tdd V _oh_Od :Lt'L _u!oo_
'
(s/p._) ,_ouonboz_I
_OI
[0[
oOI
t-OI
r-O[
vO[
t,-O[
:-OI
......
.............................
......................
.....'"
""
_OI _
--
m
u
4111
alfred
IIIl
qol!d ol
III
aOlehOl.'q
:osuodso}l
IIII
_:_uonbo.t_I
IIII
1J_.I:).I.IV
III
FuTPmTguo'-I
---
t,O[
Longitudinal
101
10 o
Aircraft, Frequency
,,,,,,,,,
,
...........................
Response: E!evator to ,An_g!e,of Attack
,,,.,,,,,
__..-..-...:
......'i
i ..'
"-
,,
"""
,,,,,_
---'-'---==''",,.
-:
..<.
<<-,
10-1_
";c.
-=
<;..
%',
%%.
10_2_
%'_"
10-3 ==
B
10-4
10-4
till
IIII
10-3
10-2
IIII
10-1
Frequency
200
IIII
IIII
10 0
Ill
101
10 2
(rad/s)
Boe!ng 747: Power Apprga, ch,, ,,a_,dH!gt}, ,_,d,,Lgw Alt{tu@, C,,ruise,

4
100
II
.,
em
0
"%
o_
I p
"-:,
,,
-100 -200
10 4
"''_
".._.x
N.
IIII
10-3
IIII
10-2
IIIII
10-1
Frequency
IIIII
10 o
(rad/s)
...;"
Illl
101
III
10 2
zOI
tOI
III
IIII
III
z-O[
,,,,,,,
t-OI
oOI
I
IIII
, ,
c-OI
,,,,,,,
, ,
_-OI
00_;- OOI-
''',..
........................
-0
-'"
Cx.
- OOI
III
Jill
IIII
as[.ruD aPm!llV
IIII
IIII
III
00_;
V _a_Od :L_L g_ao_[
_o"I ptre tl_!H ptre 'q_o:tdd
(s/pe:O _ouonbo_[
:OI
tO[
III
oOI
IIII
III
_-0[
I
:-0[
IIII
1,-0I
_-OI
c-OI
IIII
III
z-OI
=
--
',4 ;_.
_:_,
ca.
t_
_
-:fi
,,..-
II
III
paad S pxe,_..[o d ol IOll_AO[.q
II
:ostIodsa_/[3uanbaa
................
III
d ljeioi[.V
III
l-eu[.png._uo'-I
=
=
_,OI
LOI
(s/pea)
zOI
III
IIII
t-OI
o0[
[OI
I
III
ouonboId
IIII
z-O[
I
IIII
_-0[
I
III
%
%
%
%
-oo:-
......
.............
.....
-0
,.
"'..
''...
III
IIII
os!mD
opnl!lIV
fill
_oq
...................
I
pn_
q_!H
(s/p_)
zOI
tOI
o0[
,,,,,
III
,,,,,,
IIIII
pn_
'qogo_dd
Illl
V .lO_Od
IIII
'
:L_L _u!ool_I
00_
ouonbo_d
t-OI
....
."
I
z-OI
,,,,,,
o ,
c-OI
,,,,,,
,,,,,,
l,-OI
,
-,Z;-Ut
-
...
.-
o..
..'
-'..-..
.
......
....
.'
--
_0[
/"
...
".%
_s
.s_"
s 't
uo!l_.tOlOOOV IVOmOA ol .I0113A0[_ :OSUO
. UO"I
l,O[
%LATERAL
DYNAMICS
%Boeing
%
747,
sea
level--power
40,000
ft--high
20,000
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
altitude
cruise
short
%Enter
flight
Dynamics
and
Automatic
Flight
condition,
2.4
rho=[.002389
871
geometry,
mass
and
%density
.001268];
636636
18.2e6
18.2e6];
%roll
Izz=[43.1e6
49.7e6
49.7e6];
%yaw
.97e6
196
196];
cbar=[27.3
27.3
%Transform
relevant
for
ifc=l
27.3];
inertias
from
speed
inertia
(slug
product
of
%wing
area
(ft^2)
%wing
span
(ft)
%mean
geometric
frame
to
Tba2sa--
(ifc)
(ang)
^2
sin
(ang)
^2
-sin
(2*ang)
sin
(ang)
^2
cos
(ang)
^2
sin
(2*ang)
sin
(2*ang)
cos
(2*ang)
/2
-sin
(2*ang)
/2
];
Isa=Tba2sa*
Ixx
[Ixx
(ifc)=Isa
(ifc)
; Izz (ifc)
; Ixz (ifc)
] ;
(i) ;
Izz(ifc)=Isa(2)
Ixz
(ifc)
;
=Isa
(3) ;
end;
%Enter
steady-state
CLI=[1.76
.52
CDI=[.263
.045
CTxi=[.263
Cml=[0
CmTI=[0
%Enter
.40];
.025];
.025];
0];
0
0];
dimensionless
Clb=[-.281
Cip=[-.502
Cir=[.195
-.095
Cldr=[0
Cnb=[.184
Cnp=[-.222
stability
and
control
-.160];
-.320
-.340];
.200
.130];
Clda=[.053
Cnr=[-.36
coefficients.
.045
.014
.005
.013];
.008];
.210
.020
-.33
.160];
-.026];
-.28];
97
inertia
stability
[
cos
ft^2)
ft^2)
chord
:3,
ang=theta0
(ft/s)
(slug
inertia
body
(deg)
(ibs)
%cross
.97e6];
5500];
angle
(slug/ft^3)
%weight
636636]/g;
Ixx=[13.7e6
5500
parameters.
%equilibrium
673];
Ixz=[.83e6
MOI
%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibriumpitch
2.5]*pi/180;
.000588
mass=J564000
b=[196
Controls,
g=32.2;
theta0=[8.5
S=[5500
<--fc3
616-642
format
Uo=[221
ft--low
<--fcl
<--fc2
cruise
1979,
Flight
I,
approach
altitude
derivatives.
(slug
(ft)
frame.
ft^2)
Cnda=[.0083
Cndr=[-.ll3
-.0028
-.095
Cyb=[-l.08
-.90
Cyp=[0
0 0];
Cyr=[0
Cyda=[0
0];
Cydr=[.179
.060
0
%Compute
-.90];
0];
0
CnTb=[0
.0018];
-.i00];
0];
.120];
%No
numbers
dimensioned
in
Roskam
stability
and
derivatives
control
Yb
qbar.*S.*Cyb./mass;
Yp
qbar.*S.*b.*Cyp./(2*mass.*Uo);
Yr
qbar.*S.*b.*Cyr./(2*mass.*Uo);
Yda=
qbar.*S.*Cyda./mass;
Ydr=
qbar.*S.*Cydr./mass;
Lb
qbar.*S.*b.*Clb./Ixx;
Lp
qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clp./(2*Ixx.*Uo);
Lr
qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clr./(2*Ixx.*Uo);
Lda=
qbar.*S.*b.*Clda./Ixx;
Ldr=
qbar.*S.*b.*Cldr./Ixx;
Nb
qbar.*S.*b.*Cnb./Izz;
NTb =
qbar.*S.*b.*CnTb./Izz;
Np
qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Cnp./(2*Izz.*Uo);
Nr
qbar.*S.*(b.^2)
.*Cnr./(2*Izz.*Uo);
Nda =
qbar.*S.*b.*Cnda./Izz;
Ndr=
qbar.*S.*b.*Cndr./Izz;
%Compute
dynamics
Afcl=
g'sin
(theta0
(i))
Lb(1)/Uo(1)
for
flight
Yb(1)/Uo(1)
(Nb(1)+NTb(1))/Uo(1)
0
0
];
condition
Yp(1)
Yr(1)-Uo(1)
Lp(1)
Lr(1)
Np(1)
1
Nr(1)
0
Bfcl=[
Yda(1)
Ydr(1)
Lda(1)
Ldr(1)
Nda(1)
Ndr(1)
0*ones(2,2)
];
Efcl=
[
1
0
0
0
-Ixz(1)/Izz(1)
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
-Ixz(1)/Ixx(1)
];
98
in
state-space
g'cos
(theta0
form.
(i))
Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
angle
angle
matrix
Cfcl=
and
direct
input
matrix.
I/Uo(1)
AfcI(I,
:)+[0
0 UO(1)
-g
0]
];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl
(4, : ) =Bfcl
%Compute
(i, : ) ;
dynamics
for
flight
condition
Afc2=
[
(2)
Yp(2)
Yr(2)-Uo(2)
g'sin
(theta0
(2))
Lb (2)/Uo
(2)
Lp(2)
Lr(2)
Np(2)
1
Nr(2)
0
Yb(2)/Uo
(Nb(2)+NTb(2))/Uo(2)
0
0
];
Bfc2=
[
Yda(2)
Ydr(2)
Lda
(2)
Ldr
(2)
Nda
(2)
Ndr
(2)
0*ones
(2,2)
];
Efc2=[
1
0
0
];
0
0
1 0
0 1
-Ixz(2)/Ixx(2)
-Ixz(2)/Izz(2)
0
0
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
angle
angle
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc2=[
i/Uo(2)
99
in
state-space
form.
g*cos(theta0(2))
Afc2(l,
0 Uo (2)
:)+[0
-g
0]
];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2
Dfc2
(4, : ) =Bfc2
%Compute
Afc3-g'sin
(i, : ) ;
for
dynamics
[
Yb(3)/Uo
(theta0
flight
(3)
Yp(3)
Yr (3)-Uo
(3)
(Nb (3) +NTb
(3))/Uo
(3)
0
0
];
Lp(3)
Lr(3)
Np(3)
1
Nr(3)
0
(3)
Lda(3)
Nda (3)
0*ones
Ydr
(3)
Ldr(3)
Ndr (3)
(2,2)
];
Efc3=
[
1
0
-Ixz(3)/Ixx(3)
0 -Ixz(3)/Izz(3)
];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
angle
angle
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc3=[
I/Uo(3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Afc3(l,
:)+[0
0 Uo(3)
-g 0]
];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,
(3)
state-space
g'cos
0
0
0
o
[
Yda
in
(3))
Lb(3)/Uo
Bfc3=
condition
:)=Bfc3(l,:);
tO0
(theta0
form.
(3))
%LATERAL
DYNAMICS
%Boeing
747,
RESULTS
sea
level--power
40,000
ft--high
20,000
ft--low
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
E I GENVALUE
evfcl
<--fcl
cruise
altitude
cruise
Dynamics
and
Automatic
Flight
616-642
=
0
-i.1493e+00
-7.3124e-02+
7.4809e-01i
-7.3124e-02-
7.4809e-01i
-4.3081e-02
evfc2
=
0
-5.0778e-01
5.3563e-03
-i.0998e-01+
1.0144e+00i
-I.0998e-01-
1.0144e+00i
evfc3
=
0
-9.3977e-01
-1.7097e-02
-1.2491e-01+
i0437e+00i
-1.2491e-01-
1.0437e+00i
NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
0
1.1493e+00
5.0778e-01
9.3977e-01
7.5165e-01
5.3563e-03
1.7097e-02
7.5165e-01
1.0204e+00
1.0511e+00
4.3081e-02
1.0204e+00
1.0511e+00
DAMPING
RATIOS
NaN
1.0000e+00
9.7284e-02
<--fc2
<--fc3
1979,
Flight
I,
approach
altitude
NaN
1.0000e+00
-l.0000e+00
NaN
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
9.7284e-02
1.0778e-01
1.1883e-01
1.0000e+00
1.0778e-01
1.1883e-01
101
Controls,
10 2
II
II
Later_
Aircraft
I
Frequency,
IIII
Response
i Aileron
I
II1!
i IIII
to Sideslip
I
IIII
IIIII
II_
i III
10 -1
--__.--.
10 -4
m
10-7
10 -4
I IIII
I IIII
10-3
I IIII
10-2
Boeing
"1 ...............
747: Power
I
L-L-.I.,L_
..
Ap,proach,
I
"_-"_"'%
101
and H!gt_, ,ar_,dLow Altitude
IIII
........
..
10 2
(rad/s)
. .
C,,ruise,
Ill
I
"'",
10 0
-100 -
10-1
Frequency
0
-200 -300 -
""'",.o..
'''''''......
-400
10-4
I IIlll
10-3
Itlll
10-2
I I Iill
10-1
Frequency
IIIII
10 0
(rad/s)
........................
IIIll
101
I Ill
10 2
10 4
Response:
_!e , , ,,,,,,__
, , ,,,,Lateral,Aircraft
,,,,,,, Frequency
, , , .,,,,,
, , Ai!erontoRol!,An,
,
101
10 .2
IIIll
Illll
10-3
I Illl
10-2
Boeing 747: Power Aooroach,

1
" " I -'1
" I " I "1' i 'l'
.L._..
IIIII
Illll
10 0
I I Ill
101
10 2
(rad/s)
and High and Low Altitude Cruise

II
ill
III
_..............
s...
150 l-
10-4
-100
-200
10-1
Frequency
,_
_'_'_
""..._
..s-
,:_
i
I11111
10-3
II1
10-2
,,llll
111111
10 o
10-1
Frequency
(rad/s)
I11
101
III
10 2
(s/p_a) 3uonbo:td
[0[
zO[
ill
[[]
.............................................
I1[
...
-0[
z-O[
[-0[
o0[
III
]1][
III
- 00_5- a
t_
-0
%%
%
iltt
IIII
oszn.E)
III
opnlt.lIV
IIIII
IIIIII
q_!H pLm 'q:)_oIdd
h_o"I peg
IIII
V .Ioh_o(:[ :L_'L
OOZ;
_u!ool]
_,-0[
[-0[
zO[
_0[
..
.,_
::1:1
II
o[_W ,_X
Ill
It
ol uo.ml!V :asuodsa/t
II
II
_:_uanba_tt g_a_a!V I_alwI
- sO[
(s/p_s) ._3uonbo:[_[
_0[
III
oOI
tO[
I
IIII
III
IIII
vO[
vO[
t-O[
I
IIII
III
''''''',.,%
00[t_
0
__
....
_Dw
00[
.-...
.....
.......
Ill
flit
IIII
llll
It
ost.mD opmt.llV A_O'I ptm q_t.H ptre 'q3go;tdd
I I
. ..........
I
,_.,
I
..........
III
00_
V ;toa_od :Lt'L _m.oofl
(s/p_a) ,_ouonbo:td
[0[
_0[
Ill
IIII
o0[
I
IIII
t-O[
I
IIII
:-0[
I
IIII
_-0[
I
IIII
:-0[
_
-_-III
-.
I
till
UOI.lglO[O::)::) v
IIIII
[I_IOlW" I O1 lIOIO[.I v
IIII
:OSIIOdSO_[
IIIII
,_3uo[lbo.I_
_glOa.t
Ilill
|glOlW"
--
1,0[
(s/p_)
zO[
Ill
_OI
I
llll
_ouonbo_d
o0[
I
III
t-O[
I
IIII
z-OI
I
IIII
_-0[
I
III
- OOI0
- 00[
"'-...
"''''.
III
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
lilll
osz.ruDopm!lIV _oq pu_ q_z.H pu-e 'q_oIdd
.........................
IIIII
00_;
.zo,_Od :L_L _u!ooE[
(s/peI) _uonboI:I
zOI
III
tOI
I
IIII
oOI
I
III
_-OI
I
IIII
z-O[
I
IIII
_-0[
I
III
z-OI _.
-
.....
TII
fill
IIII
llll
=:.:.'_ .........................................................
IIII
IIII
Ct!lsoP!S ol aoppn_I :osuodso8 13uonboa_I 1Jeaoa.tV l_aOl_'I
I_,
t_
tOI
10 6
II
Lateral
Ill
Aircraft
I III
Fre,quencT, Response:
Rudder
I
III
to Rol! ,An,_!e
I.L
10 3
_-ka
"_
10
10-3
10-6
illl
10-4
10-3
IIII
I III
, ,Boe!ng 747: Power
10-1
10-2
Frequency
200
IIII
10 o
III
I II
101
10 2
(rad/s)
Approach,,,,a_, d H!gh, ,aI_,d,Low Alt!m, de C,,ruise,

I
I I I
100
#.
0
-100
-200
10-4
III
10-3
IIIII
10-2
IIIII
10-1
Frequency
IIIII
10 o
(rad/s)
IIIII
101
III
10 2
(s/puz) ouonbo_I
III
Ill
o0[
[0[
_0[
I
IIII
llli
III
[-0[
I
IIII
IIII
OSTmDopm!_IV _o"I pu_ _!H
zO[
[0[
o0[
III
IIII
pu_
z-O[
I
IIII
'qo_o.[dd
[-0[
IIII
IIII
[-0[
I
III
.[oA_Od:L_L _u!oo_[
z-O[
I I I
t,-0[
IIII
00_7--
00[
[-0[
III
t-O[
_-0[
I
z-O[
tO[ _.
1,0[
_,,,,,
,,,,,,,
, ,
,,,,,,,
, ,
,,,,,,,
, ,
,,,,,, i , ,
'""''
o[_uV ,_,sA ol zoppn_[ :osuodso_[ Aouonbo_[ U_:[o.-,TVI_:[o_._"I
'
'
= z.O[
tO[
III
o0[
IIII
[-OI
Jill
:-0[
IIII
_-0[
IIII
II1|
- 00E- 00E:L
.i.i.i.iiiiiiii
ill
IIII
as.truD
III
apnlt.l[V
"
"
"
O'Q
- 00I-
I.
A_o"I ptm q_t.H ptm 'q::moldd V IaA_Od :L17L _u[.ooI]
(s/p_a) ,_ouonbo&I
_:0[
II
[0[
I
III
o0[
I
III
[-0[
I
I|1
vO[
I
III
t,-OI
o0[
_-0[
I
III
[0[
_
"_..----77
--
-_-I
"._
t."
L ',1."
IIII
uo.qeaoiooo
III
:0[
_--
V ieaoJ, w-I o) aoppn'_I
III
:osuodso_I
till
Aouonboa_I
1jeao_V
III
I_aoJ,e"I
_0[
A.5
McDonnell
The contents
Stability
Douglas
F-4C
of this section
and control
MATLAB
script
MATLAB
eigenvalue,
of the Appendix
are:
data
natural
dynamics
frequency
and damping
print out from
script
for longitudinal
print out from
script
for lateral
dynamics
Frequency
MATLAB
responses
script
of longitudinal
to form
lateral
dynamics
MATLAB eigenvalue,
dynamics
natural
Frequency
of lateral
responses
dynamics
frequency
and damping
dynamics

from Roskam.1 The data were entered into
differential
equations
and lateral
dynamics.
Two additional
dynamics
were written to compute
eigenvalues,
damping ratios, and frequency
responses
for the dynamics.
The conversions
from dimensionless
to dimensioned
were done
three at a time by fh'st making each parameter,
a
3-vector----one
element for each flight condition.
The conversion
computations
are then
performed
The state-space
matrices
elements
of each vector.
E.Cc=,Ax +Bu
y =Cx +D u
(A-l)
Equation
equation
dynamics
and because of the roll/yaw coupling
in moment equations
dynamics.
the fh-st equation
of the pair by the inverse
of E.
The frequency
response
The line styles for the F-4C cases denote the following:
Solid:
power
Dashes:
subsonic
approach
Points:
supersonic
cruise
cruise
at sea level
at 35,000
at 55,000
ft
ft
111
flight conditions.
C5
DATA
FOR
AIRPLANE
Figure
C5
presents
a three-vlew
for Airplane
E.
This airplane
is representative
of a supersonic
fighter-bomber
airplane.
Stability
and control
derivatives
for this airplane
are given
in Table C5.
.25_
ES. 509. 2
MGC
B.L. 88.4
5'
I0'
20'
ES.178.3
_
F_,z22 \
w.L.s,.4
"_ \
W.L.67.6
F.s.3ogz
I
._-
,._
71
Zero W.L.
1"4
5.25
I=t
Figure
C5
Three-View
APPENDIX
of Airplane
625
Table
Flight
C5
Stability
and
Control
Derivatives
Condition
Air
(ft)
Density
Speed
(slugs/ft
3)
Supersonic
Cruise
Sealevel
35,000
55,000
002378
000739
Initial
Gravity
Attitude
Geometry
and
(Xcg)
(deg)
876
1742
.29
29
.29
11.7
2.6
3.3
530
530
53O
Inertias
Wing
Area
(ft 2)
Wing
Span
(ft)
Wing
Mean
Geometric
Weight
.000287
230
o
of
Approach
(fps)
Center
Subsonic
Cruise
Power
Altitude
for Airplane
Chord
38.7
387
38.7
16.0
160
16.0
33,200
39,000
39,000
23,700
25,000
25,000
(ft)
(ibs)
Ixx B
(slug
ft2) -
(slug
ft 2)
117,500
122,200
122,200
(slug
ft 2)
133,700
139,800
139,800
(slug
ft 2)
YYB
I
zz B
I
1,600
2,200
2,200
xz B
Steady
State
Coefficients
1.0
.26
.17
.2
.03
048
.2
.03
048
CL I
CD I
CT
C XI
mI
C
APPENDIX
626
Table
C5
Stability
Longitudinal
and
Control
Derivatives
Derivatives
for Airplane
(Cont.)
-.117
+. 054
-.40
-.78
m
u
-. 098
-.95
-.25
-1.3
m.
-2.7
-2.0
-2.0
q
0
+.27
-.18
2.8
3.75
2.8
mT
u
CL
u
CL
.555
.3
.4
+.027
-. 054
CL.
CL
q
CD
CD
u
.24
.40
.25
CT X
u
CLiH
CDiH
C
-.14
-.i0
-.15
-.322
-.58
-.38
mi H
(Note:
longitudinal
control
through
APPENDIX
stabilizer
only)
627
Table
C5
Stability
Lateral-Directional
and
Control
Derivatives
Derivatives
for Airplane
(Cont.)
-.156
-.080
-.025
-.272
-.240
-.200
C_ B
C_
P
.205
.070
.040
.057
.042
.015
.0009
.0060
.0030
.199
.125
.090
.013
-.036
-.320
-.270
-.260
+.0041
-.0010
-.0009
-.072
-.066
-.025
-.655
-.68
-.70
Yp
C
Yr
-.0355
-. 016
-.010
.124
.095
.050
C_
r
C_A
C_R
C
nB
C
n
P
C
n
C
n6 A
C
n6 R "
C
YB.
YgA
C
Y_R
APPENDIX
628
%LONGITUDINAL
DYNAMICS
%McDonnell
%
Douglas
F-4C,
%
format
short
%Enter
flight
power
approach
subsonic
cruise
<--fcl
<--fc2
Supersonic
<--fc3
cruise
e
condition,
geometry,
mass
and
MOI
%gravity
g=32.2;
theta0=[ll.7
2.6
rho=[.002378
.000739
Uo=[230
876
mass=[33200
S=[530
2200
530
38.7
cbar=[16
16
%Enter
25000];
CLI=[I.0
2200];
38.7];
CTxl=[.2
0
CmTI=[0
span
(ft)
geometric
chord
0];
Cmu=[0
-.117
-.40
Cmad=[-.95
-1.3
Cmq =[-2.0
-2.7
0
0
control
derivatives.
-.78];
-.25];
-2.0];
-.18];
+3.75
and
0];
0];
+.27
CLa=[+2.8
stability
+.054];
Cma=[-.098
CLq=[0
%wing
%mean
+2.8];
0];
0];
CDa=[+.555
+.3
+.4];
CDu=[0
+.027
-.054];
CTxu=[0
0];
CLde=[+.24
+.40
+.25];
CDde=[-.14
-.i0
-.15];
Cmde=[-.322
CDad=[0
-.58
0
CDq=[0
%Compute
0];
0];
-.38];
%No
numbers
in
Roskam
%No
numbers
in
Roskam
dimensioned
stability
and
control
Xu
=-qbar.*S.*(CDu+2*CDl)./(mass.*Uo);
XTu=
qbar.*S.*(CTxu+2*CTxl)./(mass.*Uo);
116
ft^2)
ft^2)
inertia
(ft^2)
.048];
dimensionless
CLad=[0
area
coefficients.
%Enter
CLu=[0
%wing
0];
0
CmTu=[0
CmTa=[0
(slug
of
.048];
.03
Cml=[0
ft^2)
(slug
.17];
.03
(deg)
(ft/s)
(slug
inertia
%yaw
inertia
%cross
product
16];
.26
CDI=[.2
%pitch
122200];
139800];
steady-state
speed
%weight
(ibs)
%roll
inertia
530];
b=[38.7
angle
(slug/ft^3)
%equilibrium
122200
139800
Ixz=[1600
%density
.000287];
39000]/g;
25000
Iyy=[l17500
Izz=[133700
(ft/s^2)
%equilibriumpitch
3.3]*pi/180;
1742];
39000
Ixx=[23700
parameters.
derivatives
(ft)
(slug
ft^2)
Xa
* (CDa-CLI)
---qbar.*S.
Zu
*S. *CDde./mass
* (CLu+2*CLI)
=-qbar.*S.
Za
=-qbar.*S.
./mass;
;
Xde=-qbar.
*S. *CLad.
Zad=-qbar.
Zq
./(mass.*Uo)
* (CLa+CDI)
./mass;
*cbar.
/ (2*mass.
*Uo)
=-qbar.*S.
*CLq. *cbar.
/ (2*mass.*Uo)
;
;
Zde=-qbar.
*S. *CLde./mass
*cbar.
* (Cmu+2*Cml)
. / (Iyy.*Uo)
Mu
= qbar.*S.
MTu=
Ma
(CmTu+2*CmTI)
*cbar.
-- qbar.*S
. / (Iyy.*Uo)
*Cma./Iyy;
*CmTa.
/Iyy;
qbar. *S *cbar.
qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmad./(2*Iyy.*Uo);
MTa=
Mad=
Mq
*cbar.*
qbar.*S.
qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmq./(2*Iyy.*Uo);
Mde=
qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cmde./Iyy;
%Compute
Afcl=
dynamics
for
flight
condition
in
state-space
form.
[
Xu(1)+XTu(1)
Xa(1)/Uo(1)
-g'cos
(theta0
Zu (i)
-g'sin
(theta0
(i))
Mu(1)+MTu(1)
0
(I))
Za (I)/Uo
(I)
Uo (I) +Zq(1)
Ma(1)/Uo(1)+MTa(1)/Uo(1)
0
Mq(1)
1
];
Bfcl=
[Xde
(i) ; Zde
(i) ;Mde
(I) ; 0] ;
Efcl=[
1
l-Zad(1)/Uo(1)
I];
0
0
-Mad
(1) /Uo
(1)
Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
matrix
attack
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfcl=[
0
0
0
i/uo(i)
Afcl(2,
:)-[0
0 Uo (i)
0]
];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,1)=Bfcl(2,1);
%Compute
Afc2
dynamics
= [
Xu (2) +XTu
-g'cos
(theta0
for
(2)
flight
Xa (2)/Uo
condition
(2)
(2))
117
in
state-space
form.
Zu(2)
-g'sin
Za(2)/Uo(2)
(theta0
(2))
Mu (2) +MTu (2)
Ma (2)/Uo
0
0
];
Bfc2=
[Xde
Efc2--
[
1
(2) ; Zde
(2) ;Mde
Uo (2) +Zq
(2) +MTa
(2)/Uo
(2)
(2)
Mq(2)
1
(2) ; 0] ;
0 0
l-Zad(2)/Uo(2)
-Mad(2)/Uo(2)
0 0
];
0 1
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
%
pitch
angle
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
angle
of attack
matrix
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc2=[
0
1
i/Uo(2)
0
0]
0 UO (2)
Afc2(2,:)-[0
];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2;
Dfc2(4,1)=Bfc2(2,1);
%Compute
Afc3=
dynamics
for
flight
condition
in
state-space
form.
[
Xu(3)+XTu(3)
-g'cos
(theta0
-g'sin
Xa(3)/Uo(3)
(3))
Zu (3)
Za (3)/Uo
(theta0
(3))
Mu(3)+MTu(3)
(3)
Uo (3) +Zq
Ma(3)/Uo(3)+MTa(3)/Uo(3)
Mq(3)
];
Bfc3
= [Xde
Efc3=
(3) ; Zde (3) ;Mde
(3) ; 0] ;
l-Zad(3)/Uo(3)
-Mad(3)/Uo(3)
0 0
];
0 1
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
attack
118
(3)
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
Cfc3
matrix
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
= [
0
0
1
i/Uo
0
Afc3(2,
(3)
:)-[0
0
0
0
0
0 Uo(3)
0]
];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3
(4, I) =Bfc3
(2, I) ;
119
%LONGITUDINAL
DYNAMICS
%McDonnell
%
Douglas
RESULTS
F-4C,
sea level-power
35,000
ft-subsonic
55,000
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
ft-supersonic
Dynamics
and
Automatic
616-642
EIGENVALUES
evfcl
-4.6662e-01+
6.2290e-01i
-4.6662e-01-
6.2290e-01i
2.2873e-02+
1.6668e-01i
2.2873e-02-
1.6668e-01i
evfc2
-6.3372e-01+
2.7832e+00i
-6.3372e-01-
2.7832e+00i
4.4867e-02
-3.5424e-02
evfc3
-3.1093e-01+
-3.1093e-01-
4.8536e+00i
4.8536e+00i
1.9914e-03+
2.6812e-02i
1.9914e-03-
2.6812e-02i
NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
7.7830e-01
2.8544e+00
7.7830e-01
2.8544e+00
4.8636e+00
4.8636e+00
1.6824e-01
4.4867e-02
2.6886e-02
1.6824e-01
3.5424e-02
2.6886e-02
5.9954e-01
2.2201e-01
5.9954e-01
6.3930e-02
6.3930e-02
-1.3595e-01
2.2201e-01
-l.0000e+00
-7.4070e-02
-1.3595e-01
1.0000e+00
-7.4070e-02
DAMPING
cruise
<--fcl
<--fc2
<--fc3
1979,
Flight
I,
approach
cruise
RATIOS
120
Flight
Controls,
(s/p_J) fiouonb_.Id
tO[
zO[
III
IIII
o0[
I
I1|
t-O[
I
IlJl
_-0[
I
IIII
....
c-O[
I
III
00_
-'.%
.,oo.
;%
.,-'""
.
...................
......
"" ' ' ' '

""' S '1_u_' 'os!ruD o!uosqns
os.mJDo!uosJodn
'rio _ oadav Jo_ Od :D17_I

- s_ I_ n OClli o uuo(I o IN
(s/p_s) ,ouonbo_I
:0[
,i,,
[0[
i ,
,,,,,
o0[
I i
i,,,,
[-0[
, ,
,,,,,
:-0[
, ,
,,,,,
_-0[
i i
,li,,
1-0[
i ,
lr'O[
i
t-O[
..............................
(s/puJ) fi_uonbaJ_I
:OI
III
tO[
I
oOI
IIII
III
vOI
t-OI
IIII
IIII
vOI
,,,,, , , , ,
_-OI
OOZ;-
-.
""
.........
_llllllll,,,,,
,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,..,, _
00_
os!m D :3!uosJodn S ptm 'os!m D :_!uosqn S 'q:3_o:IddV JoA_Od :D_-d S_l:_no(I IIOtmo(I:_IAT
(s/p_) 3uonbo_,_4
:OI
tOI
oOI
IIII
III
t-OI
IIII
:-OI
IIII
vOI
III
--
c-OI
=
%%
i
-_
_-OI _.
_
.....
"".,,
-:,
5
_
_
t I
I _
=
...
.............................................................
_
,-
oOI
_,.< ....
_:3mlV jo oI
t-OI
. uol
tOI
(s/pea) ,(3uonbo.k4
o0[
_0[
:0[
III
III
III
III
_-0[
,,,,, , , , ,
z-O[
[-0[
I
IIII
-0[
OOZ;-
.o,,"
-oo[}
I "
%%
I
I
I
I
I
:1
-I
III
I ....
1/111
........................
I
III
IIII
asinE) _!uosaodnS ptm 'osin.[D _!uosqn S 'q:)go:[dd
III
III
_[o_od :_)lz-z[s_I_noQ
00[
[[ouuo(]olAI
(s/p_a) ,_ouonboa_I
zO[
[0[
Illl
--"
o0[
I
%,%
o..._
..
Illl
_-0[
I
Illl
z-O[
I
IIll
vOI
I
Illl
......
--
_._,,..
_e
"'.
4-1
"" _" - -..
IIII
IIII
IIII
-22222 ...................................
=': 7.'-'L'-'-
pood S pxeA_oz[ o) .zo)EAa[.'_ :osuodso_[ DuonbolzI
IIII
IIII
)J'e.to.t.rV [utq.pn]t._uo'-[
"=
/.0[
(s/pea) houonlooa,.q
zO[
Ill
tOI
I
IIII
oOI
I
III
t-O[
I
IIII
z-O[
I
IIII
c-OI
I
IIII
- ooz-
0
'..
os!m D
3[uosIodn
rOI
,,,, , , , ,
pu_ 'ost.m D o!uosqn S
tO[
,,,,, , , , ,
o01
,,,,, , , , ,
'q:_oldd
_oA_Od:Dlr-d s _n
t-OI
,,,,, , , , ,
_-0I
,,,,, , , , ,
Ilotmo(IOlAI
c-OI
,,,,, , , , ,
OOE
1,-0I
z-O[
tOI
1,0I
%LATERAL
DYNAMICS
%McDonnell
%
Douglas
F-4C,
%
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
short
%Enter
flight
.000739
876
Automatic
geometry,
Ixx=[23700
Izz=[133700
2200
530
%Transform
inertias
from
product
of
area
(ft^2)
%wing
span
(ft)
%mean
geometric
axis
to
(ifc)
(ang)
^2
sin
(ang)
^2
-sin
(2*ang)
sin
(ang)
^2
cos
(ang)
^2
sin
(2*ang)
sin
(2*ang)
cos
(2*ang)
/2
-sin
(2*ang)
/2
];
Isa=Tba2sa*
Ixx
(ifc)
[Ixx
=Isa
(ifc)
(ifc)
; Ixz (ifc)
];
(I) ;
Izz(ifc)=Isa(2)
Ixz
; Izz
(ifc)=Isa
(3) ;
end;
%Enter
steady-state
CLI=[I.0
.26
CDI=[.2
CTxI=[.2
.048];
.03
Cml=[0
CmTI=[0
.048];
0];
0
%Enter
coefficients.
.17];
.03
0];
dimensionless
Clb=[-.156
Cip=[-.272
Cir=[.205
Clda=[.057
Cldr=[.0009
-.080
stability
control
-.025];
-.240
-.200];
.070
.040];
.042
.015];
.0060
.0030];
Cnb=[.199
.125
.090];
Cnp=[.013
-.036
0];
Cnr=[-.320
and
-.270
-.260];
125
inertia
stability
= [
cos
ft^2)
chord
: 3,
ang=theta0
ft^2)
(slug
%wing
body
(ft/s)
(slug
inertia
%cross
16];
speed
inertia
%yaw
(deg)
angle
(ibs)
%roll
2200];
relevant
ifc=l
parameters.
(slug/ft^3)
%weight
38.7];
16
MOI
%equilibrium
39000]/g;
530];
38.7
and
%density
.000287];
25000
25000];
139800
139800];
cbar=[16
Controls,
%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibriumpitch
3.3]*pi/180;
39000
Ixz=[1600
Flight
mass
1742];
mass=[33200
Tba2sa
and
condition,
rho=[.002378
for
cruise
2.6
S=[530
<--fc3
Dynamics
g=32.2;
theta0=[ll.7
b=[38.7
Supersonic
616-642
format
Uo=[230
<--fcl
<--fc2
1979,
Flight
I,
power
approach
subsonic
cruise
derivatives.
(ft)
axis.
(slug
ft^2)
Cnda=[.0041
Cndr=[-.072
-.0010
-.066
Cyb=[-.655
-.68
Cyp=[0
0];
Cyr=[0
0];
Cyda=[-.0355
-.70];
-.016
Cydr=[.124
CnTb=[0
-.0009];
-.025];
.095
0
%Compute
0];
-.010];
.050];
%No
numbers
dimensioned
in
Roskam
stability
and
control
derivatives
Yb = qbar.*S.*Cyb./mass;
yp
Yr
Yda =
Ydr =
Lb
Lp
Lr
Lda=
Ldr=
=
qbar.
*S.*b.*Cnb./Izz;
NTb =
qbar.
*S.*b.*CnTb./Izz;
Np
qbar.
Nr
qbar.
*S.*(b.^2).*Cnp./(2*Izz.*Uo);
*S.*(b.^2).*Cnr.'/(2*Izz.*Uo);
Nda =
Ndr =
qbar.
qbar.
*S.*b.*Cnda./Izz;
*S.*b.*Cndr./Izz;
Nb
%Compute
Afcl=
g'sin
dynamics
for
flight
[
Yb(1)/Uo(1)
(theta0
Yp(1)
0
0
0
o
(i))
Lp(1)
Lr(1)
Np(1)
1
Nr(1)
0
[
Yda
(i)
Ydr
(i)
Lda
(i)
Ldr
(I)
0*ones
Ndr(1)
(2,2)
];
Efcl=
[
1
0
0
0
-Ixz(1)/Izz(1)
0
0
state-space
g'cos
(Nb(1)+NTb(1))/Uo(1)
0
Nda(1)
in
Yr(1)-Uo(1)
Lb(1)/Uo(1)
0
];
Bfcl=
condition
1
0
0
1
0
0
-Ixz(1)/Ixx(1)
];
126
(theta0
form.
(I))
Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
%
sideslip
angle
roll
angle
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfcl=[
I/Uo(1)
0
0
Afcl(l,
0
0
0
0
:)+[0
0
1
0
0
0 Uo(1)
-g
0]
];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,:)=Bfcl(l,:);
%Compute
Afc2=
g'sin
dynamics
[
Yb(2)/Uo
for
flight
(2)
(theta0
(2))
Lb(2)/Uo(2)
(Nb(2)+NTb(2))/Uo(2)
0
0
];
Bfc2=
[
Yda(2)
Ydr(2)
Lda(2)
Ldr(2)
Nda(2)
0*ones
condition
Yp(2)
Yr(2)-Uo(2)
Lp(2)
Lr(2)
Np(2)
1
Nr(2)
0
[
1
Ndr(2)
(2,2)
-Ixz
0
0
-Ixz(2)/Ixx(2)
(2) /Izz
(2)
];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
angle
angle
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc2=[
i/Uo(2)
state-space
form.
g*cos(theta0(2))
o
o
0
o
];
Efc2=
in
127
Afc2(l,
:)+[0
0 Uo (2)
-g
0]
];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2
Dfc2
(4, : ) =Bfc2
%Compute
Afc3=
(i, : ) ;
dynamics
flight
condition
(3)
(theta0
(3))
Lb(3)/Uo(3)
Yp (3)
Yr (3)-Uo
Lp(3)
Lr(3)
(Nb(3)+NTb(3))/Uo(3)
0
Np(3)
1
Nr(3)
0
[
Yda(3)
Lda
Ydr(3)
(3)
Nda(3)
Ldr
(3)
Ndr(3)
0*ones
(2,2)
];
Efc3=
state-space
[
1
0
0
-Ixz(3)/Izz(3)
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
-Ixz(3)/Ixx(3)
];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
angle
angle
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc3=[
i/Uo(3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Afc3
(i, :)+[0
0 Uo (3)
-g
(3)
g'cos
0
0
0
o
];
Bfc3=
in
form.
[
Yb (3)/Uo
g'sin
for
0]
];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,:)=Bfc3(l,:);
128
(theta0
(3))
%LATERAL
DYNAMICS
%McDonnell
%
RESULTS
Douglas
F-4C,
%
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
E I GENVALUE
evfcl
<--fcl
<--fc2
(solid)
(dashed)
Supersonic
<--fc3
(dotted)
cruise
1979,
Flight
I,
power
approach
subsonic
cruise
Dynamics
and
Automatic
Flight
616-642
=
0
-i. I098e+00
-1.5240e-02
-3.1618e-01+
io7808e+00i
-3.1618e-01-
1.7808e+00i
evfc2
=
0
-1.3391e+00
-1.3123e-02
-i.1565e-01+
2.3946e+00i
-I.1565e-01-
2.3946e+00i
evfc3
=
0
-7.8175e-01
-2.8623e-03
-1.3838e-01+
2.4603e+00i
-1.3838e-01-
24603e+00i
NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
0
i.i098e+00
1.3391e+00
7.8175e-01
1.5240e-02
1.8086e+00
1.3123e-02
2.3974e+00
2.8623e-03
2.4642e+00
1.8086e+00
2.3974e+00
2.4642e+00
DAMPING
RATIOS
NaN
NaN
NaN
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
1.7482e-01
4.8239e-02
5.6158e-02
1.7482e-01
4.8239e-02
5.6158e-02
129
Controls,
(slp_:O
X3uonbo_d
:0[
t0[
Jill
oOI
Ilil
Ill
t-OI
I
vOI
lilll
-0[
Illl
Ill
- OOZ;-Og[-
oo 0_;t
..,.
....
..
i "a'"r"t
....
I .......
ost.m D o[.uosJodn S ptm 'ost.m D o[.uosqn S 'q::)Eo.Idd v .IOA_Oc[

:_)17-_ S_l:_noG IlOUUOGOIN
(s/pg_) X_uonbo:[_
:OI
[OI
III
oOI
llll
Ill
[-OI
l
llll
c-O[
:-0[
l
llll
III
_-0[
I
_-OI
..
_: '_..
_,,,
"_..
--
:-OI
"_kk"
'""
-""
"_'I
Ill
....
-.'27-
"L'-':.-._.,.
.......
.".-..-.-.
- 7.7.- - 7.- .".
.............
i_
Illll
d[.Isopt.S o1 uoJoI.tV :osuodso_I
Illl
IIIII
._3uonbo:[c[ 1jE:to_.V I_olw'I
Ill
--
tOI
_.
(s/p_:O _ouonbo_d
tO[
,,, , , , ,
-
tO[
,,,,, , , , ,
_/
o0[
,,,,, , , , ,
t-O[
,,,,, , , , ,
z-O[
,,,,, , , , ,
_-OI
,,,,, , , , ,
..... ...
li'_,
t,-OI
OOZ;-!
- >_,,,.....
o t-
''o
tl
"'"..
II
"'.....
O0[0_;-
....;.....
III
Jill
os!ru D o[uos.todn
IIIII
S pun 'osim D otuosqn
IJlll
S 'qogozdd V ZOA_Od :Dlz-,_qs_I_no(I
I't"'*
.....
t .......
flotmo(IoIAI
(s/pua) _ouonboz_I
tO[
i,ll
tOI
, ,
,i,,l
o0[
, i
,J,,1
t-O[
, ,
z-O[
,,,,l
, ,
vOI
,,,,i
, ,
,i,l,
t,-OI
,
t'-Ut
= _-OI
[mde
---
...........
_....
: zO[
.--..-- .--. -- -- _
--
",.,..
.........................................
6.
oI
oad gea_ ..qV Ie_Ole"I
_0[
(s/pg_)
:OI
,,,, , , , ,
rOI
,,,,, , , , ,
oOI
,,,,, , , , ,
Aouonbo_
t-OI
,,,,, , , , ,
vOI
,,,,, , , , ,
c-OI
,,,,, , , , ,
_-0[
0017- OOEga
- OOEt_
(m
00I-
Ill
IIII
os!ru D omosaodn
S.
III
IIII
IIII
III
ptm 'ost.m D o!uosqn S 'qo_oadd v aoA_Od:D17-,_q

S_l_no(I lIOtmo(IOIAI
(s/pga) Abuonbo&q
:0I
I/I
tOI
I
IIII
o0I
I
III
t-OI
I
IIII
_-0I
I
IIII
c-OI
I
III
_-OI
_-OI
vOI
tOI
_'"
........................
""'_
vOI
fl)
=1:111
IIIII
IIII
O[_Lr V A_13_ O) uo.lo[I.V:osuodso_[
I111
_:)uaIlba_
IIIII
III
lJl_.I3.q.
V [l_OllV I
LOI
_-__
o[OI
(s/p_)
[0[
:0[
III
Illl
_3uanbal_I
o0[
I
III
t-O[
I
III
z-O[
I
III
[-0[
I
III
- 00[-
t
t
I
t
I
%%
-0
.,..
|
%|
".t
00[
%%
,., ..:.._',_
.....
".,,..
III
as.re.E)
IIII
3[.uosiodrt
S peg
III
'osI.rLE)
3[.uosqns
IIII
'qo_o.zdd
Ia_o
IIII
IIII
d :_)_-z:[ s_[_noo
00_
[[otItIo(]olA[
(s/puz) _:_uonbozzI
zO[
Ill
[0[
I
IIII
oOI
I
Illl
[-0[
I
Illl
z-OI
I
Illl
[-0[
I
Illl
oOI
_
.;=
-_
......
"_-
[OI _.
:. .....
'-.
zO[
,.
-,
m
.,.,
"
UOI.Ig10[033
_I
a;; UOlO[l v.
:asuodso_[
_3uaflbal_
......................................
l_I_13_r[,v
[_Io)_'-[
= _0[
,_ouonb_ d
(siPs1)
tOI
_0[
III
III
o0[
I
III
t-O[
I
III
:-OI
-01
liil
III
/
-
_oot
""_'_'"_'"
::" '" """:: ' ' :: L'_.".............
00I
II
........
I
Ill
III
IIII
os!ru D :)!uos.mdnS ptm 'os!ru D :3!uosqn S
IIII
III
.[O,_Od :_)]z-.,-Isl3[_rlo(]
'qO13o.ldd v
[[ouuo(IolA [
OOZ;
(s/pea) ,_ouonbo:td
z0[
II
tOI
I
III
oOI
I
III
t OI
I
III
eOI
z-OI
III
III
-0I
vOI
t-OI _
..,..'
....."
...-.
.,,,_.: .........
_.._.._...._"_
o0[
=
_.
."
(.'t
i.t
I
Ill
d.qsop.[g
III
ol Ioppn_l
III
IIII
:osuodso_l ,_ouanbaI_I IJEZ::)_.V l'eaoll;"[
III
tO[
Lateral Ai?c,r,a,ft,,
Fre,quency, Response:
10 4
--
Ill
--"..........................
101
_-
10-2
10-5
'" _ _" .........
IIIII
IlllL
"-'"--.-.7. 7.- - -
IIIII
10-3
10-4
Rudder to,Rol! ,An,,

_!e
IIII
10-2
IIIII
10-1
200 McDo,nr_e,l!,Douglas F:4Ci,Power
IIIII
10 o
IIII
101
10 2
Frequency
(rad/s)
Approach,
Subsonic, C,ruise,, and,Su,p,ersonic C,m,ise
100
........................
.........o.....
N-'..'.>.,
0
r_
-100
-200
10-4
III
103
IIII
10-2
IIII
10-1
Frequency
III
100
(rad/s)
IIII
101
III
102
101o
Lateral
Aircraft
I
I1|
Frequency
l
Response:
II
IIII
Rudder
to Yaw, ,An_!e
III
IlJ_
10 7
10 4
101
"
...,.
o-
. .7......
'- .-........_
10-2
D
I
IIII
IIIII
10-3
IIIII
10-2
UU'r
Douglas
i
,,Ill
F-4C: Power Approach,

I
III
10-1
Frequency
1... McDonnell
III
Ill
IIIll
10 o
101
III
10 2
(rad/s)
Subsonic
I
-300 -
Cruise,
i
III
and Supersonic
I
_,.
Frequency
(rad/s)
III
C ,ruise
I
(s/p_s)
tOI
zOI
II
I$1
o01
I
,_ouonba:t d
z-O[
I{I
t-O[
I
III
vO[
IIII
IIII
fl)
O_
00[%
''.
,,.
*,..
,
III
os[.ru_)
IIII
o[.uos.todn
S ptm
IIII
'os.[ru
II
,,..,..,.
_"------_L,-IJ-i"_'I";I:._.I...
D o!uosqn
S 'q::)Eo.xdd
V .IOA_Od :Dtr-...q s'eI_no(]
I[otmo(]olAI
(s/pea) L:)uonbo.L.q
zOI
II
tOI
I
III
o01
I
III
t-OI
I
III
z-O[
I
I|1
vOI
I
III
B
D
J
tOt
K
lidtl
.j
_.
......
.............................
22__._
I :'l
1 fl
w
-Fill
IIII
uo!lE_oIoooV
III
IeaOle'-I ol lappn_I
IIII
:osuodso_l
IIII
AouonboI_I _;o_.V
III
IElOl_"l
- _OI
A.6
Learjet
The contents
Stability
Model
24
of this section
and control
MATLAB
script
MATLAB
eigenvalue,
of the Appendix
are:
data
natural
dynamics
frequency
and damping
print out from
script
for longitudinal
print out from
script
for lateral
dynamics
Frequency
responses
MATLAB
script
MATLAB
eigenvalue,
of longitudinal
to form
lateral
natural
dynamics
dynamics
frequency
and damping
dynamics
Frequency
responses
of lateral dynamics

from Roskam. 1 The data were entered into
differential
equations
and lateral
dynamics.
Two additional
dynamics
were written to compute
eigenvalues,
damping
ratios, and frequency
responses for the dynamics.
The conversions
from dimensionless
to dimensioned
were done
three at a time by first making each parameter,
a
3-vector--one
element for each flight condition.
The conversion
computations
are then
performed
The state-space
matrices
elements
of each vector.
E._=,Ax +Bu
y =Cx +D u
(A-l)
Equation
equation
dynamics
and because of the roll/yaw
coupling in moment equations
dynamics.
the first equation of the pair by the inverse
of E.
The frequency
The line styles
response
for the Learjet Model 24 cases denote the following:
Solid:
power
approach
Dashes:
Cruise
at 40,000
ft at maximum
Points:
Cruise
at 40,000
ft at low weight
IIL/gr4K NOT
conditions.
at sea level
139
PAGE
flight
FILMED
weight
LJ_
C4
DATA
A
FOR
AIRPLANE
three-view
airplane
business
presented
for
D
Airplane
is representative
jet.
Stability
in Table
is presented
in
Figure
C4.
of a medium
sized high performance
and control
derivatives
for Airplane
This
D are
C4.
nn n
Fisure
C4
nn
Three-View
APPENDIX
of
Airplane
616
Table
Flight
C4
Stability
and
Control
Derivatives
Condition
Air
(ft)
Density
Speed
(slugs/ft
3)
Airplane
Approach
Cruise
Max. Wht.
Cruise
Low Wht.
Sealevel
40,000
40,000
002378
000588
000588
170
(fps)
677
(M = .7)
Center
of
Initial
Gravity
Attitude
Geometry
and
Area
(ft 2)
Wing
Span
(ft)
Wing
Mean
Geometric
I
I
.32
677
(M = .7)
.32
(aft)
.32
(aft)
(aft)
1.8
2.7
1.5
230
230
230
34
34
34
(Xcg)
(deg)
Inertias
Wing
Weight
Power
Altitude
for
Chord
(ft)
(ibs)
13,000
13,000
9,000
(slug
ft 2)
28,000
28,000
6,000
(slug
ft 2)
17,800
18,800
17,800
(slug
ft 2)
47,000
47,000
25,000
(slug
ft 2)
1,300
1,300
1,400
1.64
.41
.28
.0335
.0279
.0335
.0279
YYB
I
zz B
I
xz B
Steady
State
Coefficients
CL I
.256
CD I
CT
.256
X1
m1
C
mT 1
APPENDIX
617
Table
C4
Stability
Longitudinal
and
Control
Derivatives
Derivatives
for
Airplane
(Cont.)
-.01
.05
.O7
-.66
-.64
- .64
C
m
-5.0
-6.7
-6.7
-13.5
-15.5
-15.5
m.
C
m
q
.0O6
C
u
-. 003
-. 003
mT
.04
CL
.28
.40
CL
CL.
5.04
5.84
5.84
1.6
2.2
2.2
4.1
4.7
4.7
CL
q
CD
CD
1.06
.30
.22
.104
.104
CT X
u
.46
.40
.46
CL_, E
0
CD_E
C
-.98
0
-i. 24
0
-i. 24
m_ E
APPENDIX
618
Table
C4
Stability
Lateral-Directlonal
and
Control
Derivatives
for
Airplane
(Cont.)
- .173
- .ii0
- .i00
-.39
-.45
- .45
Derivatives
C_ B
C_
P
.45
.16
.14
.149
.178
.178
.014
.019
.021
.150
.127
.124
C
r
C_6A
Cg_R
C
n8
C
-.13
-. 008
-.022
-.26
-.20
-.20
-.05
-.02
-.02
-.074
-.074
-.074
n6 R
C
-.73
-.73
-.73
C
Yp
C
Yr
P
C
n
r
C
n6 A
YB
.4
Y6 A
.140
.4
.4
.140
.140
Y6 R
APPENDIX
619
%LONGITUDINDAL
DYNAMICS
%Learjet
%
24,
Model
%
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
short
%Enter
flight
cruise
<--fc3
Flight
Controls,
Dynamics
2.7
677
Ixx=[28000
Iyy=[17800
Izz=[47000
geometry,
230
17800];
25000];
%yaw
steady-state
.0335
CTxi=[.256
speed
inertia
(slug
product
%wing
area
%wing
%mean
span
(ft)
geometric
of
dimensionless
0];
0 0];
Cmu=[-.01
.05
Cma=[-.66
-.64
stability
Cmq=[-13.5
-15.5
-15.5];
CmTu=[.006
-.003
-.003];
CLu=[.04
.40
CLad=[l.6
2.2
4.7];
.30
.104
0
0];
0];
Cmde=[-.98
.22];
.104];
.46
CDde=[0
.46];
-1.24
CDad=[0
0
0
derivatives
5.84];
2.2];
4.7
CDa=[I.06
CLde=[.40
control
.28];
5.84
CTxu=[0
-6.7];
0];
CLa=[5.04
CLq=[4.1
derivatives.
-.64];
-6.7
control
.07];
Cmad=[-5.0
CmTa=[0
and
0];
0];
-1.24];
%No
numbers
in
Roskam
%No
numbers
in
Roskam
dimensioned
stability
and
144
inertia
chord
.0279];
%Enter
ft^2)
ft^2)
(ft^2)
.0279];
ft^2)
(slug
.28];
Cml=[0
CmTI=[0
(deg)
(ft/s)
(slug
coefficients.
.0335
angle
(slug/ft^3)
inertia
%cross
7];
.41
%Compute
%pitch
230];
CDI=[.256
parameters.
%weight
(ibs)
%roll
inertia
1400];
CLI=[1.64
MOI
%density
.000588];
34];
7
and
%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibrium
pitch
6000];
1300
cbar=[7
CDq=[0
mass
%equilibrium
18800
47000
CDu=[0
Automatic
9000]/g;
28000
34
and
677];
13000
Ixz=[1300
ft-low
1.5]*pi/180;
.000588
mass=[13000
%Enter
weight
condition,
rho=[.002378
S=[230
40,000
g=32.2;
theta0=[l.8
b=[34
<--fcl
<--fc2
616-642
format
Uo=[170
approach
weight
cruise
1979,
Flight
I,
sea
level-power
40,000
ft-max
(ft)
(slug
ft^2)
XU
=-qbar.*S.
XTu =
Xa
* (CDu+2*CDI)
. / (mass.*Uo)
qbar.*S.*(CTxu+2*CTxl)
=-qbar.*S.
* (CDa-CLI)
Xde=-qbar.
*S. *CDde./mass
Zu
=-qbar.
*S. * (CLu+2*CLI)
Za
=-qbar.*S.
;
./ (mass.*Uo)
Ma
*cbar.
/ (2*mass.
/ (2*mass.
./(Iyy.*Uo)
qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cma./Iyy;
MTa =
qbar.*S.*cbar.*CmTa./Iyy;
Mad=
qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2)
Mq
*Uo) ;
*Uo) ;
/ (Iyy.*Uo)
qbar.*S.*cbar.*(CmTu+2*CmTl)
=
./mass;
Zde=-qbar.
*S. *CLde./mass;
Mu
= qbar.*S.
*cbar.*
(Cmu+2*Cml)
MTu=
./mass;
* (CLa+CDI)
Zad=-qbar.
*S. *CLad.
Zq =-qbar.*S.*CLq.*cbar.
./(mass.*Uo)
Mde=
qbar.*S.*
qbar.
%Compute
Afcl=
.*Cmad./(2*Iyy.*Uo)
(cbar.
*S. *cbar.
^2) .*Cmq.
/ (2*Iyy.
;
*Uo)
*Cmde./Iyy;
dynamics
for
flight
condition
1 in
state-space
form.
Xu (I)+XTu (I)
-g'cos
(theta0
zu(1)
-g'sin
Xa (I)/Uo
Za (i)/Uo
(theta0
(I))
Mu (I) +MTu (I)
[Xde
(i) ; Zde
(i)
Uo (I) +Zq
Ma(1)/UO(1)+MTa(1)/UO(1)
0
0
];
Bfcl=
(i)
(I))
(i) ;Mde
(i)
Mq(1)
1
0
0
(i) ; 0] ;
Efcl=[
1
l-Zad(1)/Uo(1)
i];
0
0
-Mad
(1) /Uo
(1)
Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
%
pitch
angle
angle
of attack
forward
vertical
%output
Cfcl=
matrix
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
0
0
0
i/uo (i)
0
0
1
0
Afcl(2,
:)-[0
0 Uo(1)
0]
];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl
Dfcl(4,1)=Bfcl(2,1)
%Compute
dynamics
;
;
for
flight
condition
Afc2=[
145
in
state-space
form.
Xu (2) +XTu
(2)
-g'cos
(theta0
Zu (2)
-g'sin
(theta0
(2))
Mu (2) +MTu (2)
[Xde
Efc2--
(2)
Za (2)/Uo
(2)
Uo (2) +Zq
Ma(2)/Uo(2)+MTa(2)/Uo(2)
0
0
];
Bfc2=
Xa(2)/Uo
(2))
(2) ; Zde
(2) ;Mde
Mq(2)
1
(2) ; 0] ;
10
0
0
(2)
00
l-Zad(2)/Uo(2)
-Mad(2)/Uo(2)
00
10
00
01
];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
matrix
attack
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc2=[
0
0
1
i/Uo(2)
0
0
0
0
0
Afc2(2,:)-[00
0]
Uo(2)
];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2;
Dfc2(4,1)=Bfc2(2,1);
%Compute
Afc3=
dynamics
for
-g'sin
condition
in
state-space
[
Xu(3)+XTu(3)
-g'cos
flight
Xa(3)/Uo(3)
Zu (3)
za (3)/Uo (3)
Uo (3)+zq (3)
(theta0
(3))
Mu(3)+MTu(3)
0
Ma(3)/Uo(3)+MTa(3)/Uo(3)
0
Mq(3)
1
(theta0
(3))
];
Bfc3=
[Xde
Efc3--
[
10
(3) ; Zde
(3) ;Mde
(3) ; 0] ;
00
l-Zad(3)/Uo(3)
00
-Mad(3)/Uo(3)
10
00
01
];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
146
form.
%Compute
pitch
angle
angle
of
%
%
forward
vertical
%output
matrix
attack
speed
acceleration
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc3=[
0
0
1
I/Uo(3)
0
0
0
0
0
Afc3(2,:)-[0
0 Uo(3)
0]
];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,1)=Bfc3(2,1);
147
% LONGITUDINAL
%Learjet
%
DYNAMICS
Model
24,
%
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
I,
approach
weight
cruise
<--fcl
<--fc2
40,000
weight
<--fc3
ft--low
Dynamics
and
Automatic
616-642
E IGENVALUES
evfcl
=
-9.0759e-01+
1.3200e+00i
-9.0759e-011.4080e-02+
1.3200e+00i
2.3850e-01i
1.4080e-02-
2.3850e-01i
evfc2
-9.9457e-01+
-9.9457e-01-5.2956e-03+
-5.2956e-03-
evfc3
2.6413e+00i
2.6413e+00i
9.0481e-02i
9.0481e-02i
-i.1777e+00+
2.7009e+00i
-l.1777e+00-
2.7009e+00i
-8.6035e-03+
1.0032e-01i
-8.6035e-03-
1.0032e-01i
NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
1.6019e+00
2.8223e+00
2.9465e+00
1.6019e+00
2.8223e+00
2.9465e+00
2.3891e-01
9.0636e-02
1.0069e-01
2.3891e-01
9.0636e-02
1.0069e-01
5.6657e-01
3.5239e-01
3.9971e-01
5.6657e-01
3.5239e-01
3.9971e-01
-5.8933e-02
5.8427e-02
8.5446e-02
-5.8933e-02
5.8427e-02
8.5446e-02
DAMPING
cruise
1979,
Flight
pp.
sea
level--power
40,000
ft--max
RATIOS
148
Flight
Controls,
(s/p_)
:0[
_0[
III
ll
3uonbo_d
o0[
I
III
vOI
[-0[
I
illl
[-0[
IIII
III
- 00[-
%,
,_.;_.;..._.;.;;_;_:_"_
--'..
.t
.|
"!
".$
....
.:.'._
- 00[
- OOZ;
II
IIII
lq_t.OA__o'I pu_ x_IAI 1_ os!ruD pu_

(s/p_)
_0[
III
[01
I
IIII
o0(
I
'q;:)l_o.Idd
III
OOE
lO_Od :_E IopoIa[ lo[_o_I
gouonbo_I
[-0(
IIIII
r-O[
IIIII
IIII
_-0[
I
IIIII
[-OI
_e
--
_._ _
--
--
_", _..--..-........
.......',_.
--
"'.
-'_. :"_"'_* "--" "--" :
.9
_0[
m
II
o[_uv
till
III
qog.d Ol .IOll_AOIH :OSuOdSO_[
llll
_ouonboJtI
till
1ll_.Io.I.l_
Ill
l-em.pmt._uo'-[
--
_OI
(s/p_I)
zO[
Ill
_0[
I
oOI
Illl
Illl
_3uonbo._ d
vOI
,,,,,,,
t-OI
I
Illl
, ,
g-OI
,,,,,,,
_-OI
OOZ;-
, ,
- OOI
lit
till
lq_!o3A
Illll
IIIII
IIIII
Ill
OOZ:
A_o'-[ ptm x_iA [ lu os!m D ptm 'qouozdd V zoA_o d :_Z IopoIA[ lo[_a"I
(s/p_a) ,_ouonboad
zOI
1 I
tOI
I
III
t-O[
,,,,,,,
oOI
I
III
, ,
z-OI
,,,,,,,
, ,
c-OI
,,,,,,,
, ,
_-OI
_ _-0I
.),_.....
.-|
.,.
.,. _ ,_.'-'_"
.-.-...._.._...........
E-
OI
oOI
. _: _" ............................................
:1
..._1
_ll
)P_llV
IIII
IIIII
IIIII
jo oi_u V ol ZOI_AO[_I :osuodso}I
,_ouonboa:I
IIII
1J_:to_V
IIIII
l_m.pm!_uo"I
--"
_0[
(s/p_a)
:0[
tO[
III
_{ouonbo_I
oOI
IIIII
III
_-0[
L-OI
I
IIII
IIII
c-O[
I
III
t-OI
00_-
, ,
- OOI-0
c_
O_
"I
OOI
".t
"|
",I
-|
III
Jill
lq_!oA_ _oq
lilt
IIII
ptm x_ N 1_ os!ruD ptm 'q_o_dd
IIII
lilt
'
V aoA_Od :_
IOpOlAIlo[_moq
:-OI
c-OI
00_
(s/p_a) ,_ouonbo_d
tOI
:OI
III
IIII
t-O[
oOI
I
III
IIII
IIII
Ill
_0[
_-0[
_-OI
_OI _.
i
_
._..,.
,,_
"
_1
"'"?'"
aol_^oI_t :osuo
IIII
llil
oa_ 1._ao..qV I_mpnl!_uoq
'
'
_0[
/.OI
(s/p_:O Xouonbo;_I
:0I
Ill
oOI
tO[
I
Ill
II
:-0[
_-0[
lii
_-OI
till
Ill
"'..%
,.%
oo:-
"%**
_'_*_'_,_._._._
.....
_w_
'.%
Lt
t_
LI
......
.....
L.t
___"
........'"'
Ill
I|I
Ill
llf
III
ill
lq_!oA_ A_O"Iptm x_ N 1_ os!mD ptm 'qo_o_dd V _OA_Od:17_;IopoIA[ lo!_mo"I

(s/p_z) Louonbo_I
'
00_
%LATERAL
DYNAMICS
%Learjet
%
Model
24,
%
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
pp.
<--fcl
<--fc2
40,000
weight
cruise
<--fc3
Flight
Controls,
short
%Enter
flight
Dynamics
condition,
2.7
rho=[.002378
677
geometry,
6000];
47000
25000];
34
%wing
area
(ft^2)
(ft)
%wing
span
7];
%mean
geometric
relevant
inertias
from
body
axis
to
(ifc)
stability
cos
(ang)
sin
sin
(ang) ^2
(2*ang)
/2
^2
sin
(ang)
cos
-sin
^2
-sin
(2*ang)
sin
(2*ang)
cos
(2*ang)
(ang) ^2
(2*ang)
/2
];
Isa=Tba2sa*
Ixx
(ifc)
[Ixx
=Isa
(ifc)
(ifc)
(ifc)
; Ixz (ifc)
];
(i) ;
Izz(ifc)=Isa(2)
Ixz
; Izz
=Isa
(3) ;
end;
%Enter
steady-state
CLI=[1.64
.41
CDI=[.256
.0335
CTxi=[.256
Cml=[0
CmTl=[0
%Enter
coefficients.
.28];
.0279];
.0335
.0279];
0];
0
0];
dimensionless
Cib=[-.173
Clp=[-.39
Clr=[.45
stability
-.ii0
-.45
.16
and
control
-.I00];
-.45];
.14];
Clda=[.149
.178
.178];
Cldr=[.014
.019
.021];
Cnb=[.150
.127
.124];
Cnp=[-.13
Cnr=[-.26
-.008
-.20
-.022];
-.20];
153
ft^2)
ft^2)
inertia
chord
: 3,
ang=theta0
Tba2sa=
[
(deg)
(ft/s)
(slug
(slug
of
34];
7
ifc=l
speed
%yaw
inertia
%cross
product
1400];
angle
(slug/ft^3)
%weight
(ibs)
%roll
inertia
230];
%Transform
for
parameters.
%equilibrium
28000
cbar=[7
MOI
%density
9000]/g;
Izz=[47000
1300
and
%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibrium
pitch
.000588];
Ixx=[28000
b=[34
mass
677];
13000
230
Automatic
1.5]*pi/180;
.000588
mass=[13000
S=[230
and
g=32.2;
theta0=[l.8
Ixz=[1300
ft-low
616-642
format
Uo=[170
approach
weight
cruise
1979,
Flight
I,
sea
level-power
40,000
ft-max
derivatives.
(ft)
axis.
(slug
ft^2)
Cnda=[-.05
-.02
Cndr=[-.074
Cyb=[-.73
-.73
Cyp=[0
-.02];
-.074
-.074];
-.73];
0 0];
Cyr=[.4
.4
Cyda=[0
.4];
0];
Cydr=[.140
CnTb=[0
.140
0
%Compute
0];
.140];
%No
numbers
dimensioned
in
Roskam
stability
and
control
derivatives
Yb
Yp
=
=
qbar.*S.*Cyb./mass;
Yr
Yda =
Ydr=
Lb
Lp
Lr
Lda=
Ldr=
=
qbar.*S.
*b.*Cnb./Izz;
NTb =
qbar.*S.
*b.*CnTb./Izz;
Np
qbar.*S.
Nr
qbar.*S.
*(b.^2).*Cnp./(2*Izz.*Uo);
*(b.^2).*Cnr./(2*Izz.*Uo);
Nda=
qbar.*S.
*b.*Cnda./Izz;
Ndr=
qbar.*S.
*b.*Cndr./Izz;
Nb
%Compute
Afcl
dynamics
for
flight
(theta0
(i))
Lb (I)/Uo
(i)
(Nb(1)+NTb(1))/Uo(1)
0
0
];
Bfcl=
1 in
Yp(1)
Yr(1)-Uo(1)
Lp(1)
Lr(1)
Np(1)
Nr(1)
1
0
0
1
[
Yda(1)
Ydr(1)
Lda(1)
Ldr(1)
Nda(1)
Ndr(1)
0*ones
(2,2)
];
Efcl=
state-space
form.
= [
Yb(1)/Uo(1)
g'sin
condition
[
1
-Ixz
0
0
1 0
-Ixz(1)/Ixx(1)
(I)/Izz
(I)
];
154
g'cos
(theta0
(i))
Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
angle
angle
matrix
and
direct
matrix.
input
Cfcl=[
I/Uo(1)
0
0
Afcl(l,
0
0
0
0
:)+[0
0
1
0
0
1
-g
0 Uo(1)
0]
];
DfcI=0*CfcI*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,:)=Bfcl(l,:);
%Compute
dynamics
for
flight
condition
Afc2=
[
Yb(2)/Uo(2)
Yp(2)
g'sin
(theta0
(2))
Lb(2)/Uo(2)
Yr(2)-Uo(2)
Lp(2)
Lr(2)
(Nb(2)+NTb(2))/Uo(2)
0
Np(2)
1
Nr(2)
0
];
Bfc2=
[
Yda(2)
Lda(2)
Nda(2)
0*ones
Ydr(2)
Ldr(2)
Ndr(2)
(2,2)
];
Efc2=
[
1
0
0
-Ixz
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
-Ixz(2)/Ixx(2)
(2) /Izz
(2)
];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
angle
angle
and
direct
input
matrix.
Cfc2=[
i/Uo(2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
155
in
state-space
g'cos
(theta0
form.
(2))
Afc2(l,
:)+[0
0 UO(2)
-g
0]
];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2
Dfc2(4,
*Bfc2
:) ;
dynamics
for
%Compute
Afc3
:)=Bfc2(l,
flight
condition
Yb(3)/Uo
Yp(3)
(3)
(theta0
(3))
Lb(3)/Uo(3)
(Nb(3)+NTb(3))/Uo(3)
0
0
];
Bfc3=
Yr(3)-Uo(3)
Lp(3)
Lr(3)
Np(3)
1
Nr(3)
0
[
Yda(3)
Ydr(3)
Lda
Ldr
(3)
Nda(3)
(3)
Ndr(3)
0*ones
(2,2)
];
Efc3=[
1
0
-Ixz(3)/Ixx(3)
0 -Ixz(3)/Izz(3)
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute
sideslip
roll
%
%
yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration
%output
matrix
angle
angle
and
direct
input
matrix.
= [
i/Uo
(3)
Afc3(l,
:)+[0
0 Uo(3)
-g
0]
];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3
state-space
form.
= [
g'sin
Cfc3
in
(4, : ) =Bfc3
(i, : ) ;
156
g*cos(theta0(3))
%LATERAL
DYNAMICS
%Learjet
Model
24,
sea
level-power
approach
<--fcl
40,000
ft-max
weight
cruise
<--fc2
40,000
ft-low
weight
cruise
<--fc3
Flight
Controls,
%Roskam,
J.,
%Airplane
%Part
1979,
Flight
I,
pp.
Dynamics
and
Automatic
616-642
EIGENVALUES
evfcl
=
0
5.5832e-02+
1.0288e+00i
5.5832e-02-
1.0288e+00i
-7.4454e-01
2.9636e-02
evfc2
=
0
-5.0232e-01
-I.1878e-03
-5.8493e-02+
1.6836e+00i
-5.8493e-02-
1.6836e+00i
evfc3
=
0
-2.2733e+00
-2.6623e-02+
2.2741e+00i
-2.6623e-02-
2.2741e+00i
-2.0106e-03
NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
0
1.0303e+00
5.0232e-01
2.2733e+00
1.0303e+00
1.1878e-03
2.2743e+00
7.4454e-01
1.6846e+00
2.2743e+00
2.9636e-02
1.6846e+00
2.0106e-03
DAMPING
RATIOS
NaN
NaN
NaN
-5.4190e-02
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
-5.4190e-02
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00
3.4722e-02
1.1706e-02
1.1706e-02
-l.0000e+00
3.4722e-02
1.0000e+00
157
(s/p_a) 3uonboa_I
oOI
ill
IIII
III
t-OI
III
:-0[
I
IIII
g-OI
I
III
**...o.
o,..
"OO,o,,
..
I
I
I
I
"
I
,o_
/
III
IIIII
IIII
IIII
lq_!oAk _o_I pLrex_lA[ 1_os!rUD pLre'q:)_o_dd
IIII
IIIII
00_
_a_o d :17E[aPIA_la!_rea_I
(s/p_a) _uonboa_I
:OI
tOI
t-OI
oOI
IIII
--
",%
IIII
_:-OI
I
IIII
_,-OI
_-OI
_-OI
I
IIII
:-0[
%%
m
--
..:;
..
-I-I
IIII
_"
_OI
III
IIII
IIII
III
- _0[
(s/p_J)
fiouonboJzI
:0[
III
00[-
:_,g IOpOlAIlo[_ol
(s/pua) ,_uonboa,.q
_0[
zO[
I
III
oOI
I
III
z-O[
t-O[
I
III
Illl
vO[
I
Illl
'.,,
t-OI
zOI _.
t_
=
_0[
D
B
B
:1:11
llll
Olgtrv
III
IIII
IIO_I ol uo:tol].V :osuodso_I
llll
Aouonboa_I ll_aa .a3V N_ol_q
III
sO[
(s/p_)
zO[
o0[
_0[
j j j
III
IIII
....
gouonbo_I
t-OI
I
j j I
z-Of
J
J]
| J
c-O|
J
_-Ol
JJJJ | J J J
009-
...
",.,,.
"'.,,.
OOE0
Ill
l
I,
IIII
ltI_!OA_ _ol
OOE
IIII
till
Illl
Ill
0017
ptm X_lAI1_ osImD ptm 'qo_osdd v _O_Od :_'E IOpOlAI1_!_I
(s/p_)
zOI
,,,, , , ,
tO[
,,,,, , , ,
o0[
,,,,, , , , ,
._ouonboa,_4
vO[
,,,,, , , ,
z-O[
,,,,, , , ,
c-O[
,,,,, , , ,
_,-0[
_;-0[
z-O[
_,0I
_OI
--,
::gill
Itll
IIIII
Itll
lilt
IIIIt
Olgtrv A_ X ol uoaolt.V :osuodsoH Aouonbo_q g_aoa.t V I_Olw-I
otO[
(s/pua) ,_ouonboa_
zO[
Ill
[0[
I
II|l
o01
I
III
[-0[
I
Illl
z-O[
I
IIll
vOI
I
Illl
",,,.,
'''"....
0
!
I
OOZ
(m
001_
III
IIII
III
lq_.tOA, k A_o"I ptm x'uiA [ 1_ os!ruD
IIII
ptm 'qo_o_dd
IIII
III
009
V _oA_o d :_E IopoIAI lo!_mo"I
(s/p_a) Abuonboa_I
zOI
Ill
tO[
I
"_
"
_" _
_' _. ,_.._.
'...
Illl
oOI
I
Illl
[-0[
I
Illl
vO[
I
Illl
c-OI
I
Illl
_. ,..
o0[
_
'%
...................
"_ .--, .--..-.,_..--....:.._...:...,,:,.
Inl_o
_0[
m
uo!luzoIoooV
[_zolu"I ol uoaolV V :osuo
oz.q 1jezo ._qV [uao_u"I
90I
zO[
_0[
II
o0[
IIII
III
"
"
I
|
-0[
z-Of
t-O[
Ilil
illl
III
- OOI-
I
I
I
.,._
r_
OOI
""?.?.?...
"'__
..... _
- 00_;
ill!
Ill
lq_[.oAk _o"I
III
III
ptm X'_lA[ le aS!haD ptre 'qoeoadd
III
III
OOE
V ao_o d :17E [opolAI lo[XeO"l
(s/pea) ._ouonboa.q
zOI
I I
oOI
[OI
I
li
III
[-OI
I
z-OI
IIII
IIII
_-OI
I
III
--
"_'1
II
tl
.:
."
--
IIII
d[.[sop.[ S ol
Ill
ill
aoppn_I :osuodso_[ ,_uonbold
IIII
1jeao.arV'I_amwI
IIII
:0[
tO[
Ill
IIII
t-O[
o0[
I
Ill
IIII
vO[
I
IIII
[-0[
I
III
_OI
I
00_-
".o..
00[0
oo[
00_;
III
t.
III1|
Illl
IIIII
tllll
IIII
00[
lq_t.OA_ A_oq ptm x_IAI 1_ ost.mD ptm 'qo_o_tdd V IoA_Od :lTE;IopoIAI lo!_mo"I
zOI
tO[
I
IIII
oOI
I
III
I I
z-O[
t-O[
I
IIII
Illl
vOI
I
Illl
.-..--.
z-OI
tOI
_.
Oi
m
m
"'"
(s/puz)
t0[
z0I
Ill
o0[
IIIII
,_uonbo_d
_-0[
IIIII
z-0[
IIIII
[-0[
IIIII
_0[
IIII
00_7--
- 00g-
t
I
I
I
I
00Z-
I
....
'_* p,_
.
_._...
%-
00[(m
LIII
, ,
lqgIoM
,,,,, ' ' ' '
""'
' ' '
'
""'
,_o"I ptm X_lN 1_ osIruD ptm 'q_o:[dd
V zO_Od
:17_ IopoI_
lo!_ol
001
(s/pea) ,_ouonboId
z0I
[0I
o0I
[-0[
z-0I
_-0I
_-0I
_-0[
z-0I
[0I
_0[
___
z0I
:
:Till
IIII
III
oI_UV ,,_A ol zoppn'tl
IIII
:osuodso_l
IIII
A_uonbo_zI g_za ..qV I_Ol_'I
III
"
----
o_0I
(s/p_i) ,_3uonbaad
o0[
tO[
III
IIII
t-O[
lilt
vO[
z-O[
IIII
Illl
Illl
,=,_%
l
- OOE-
I
t
i
I
I
- OOZ:-
":.:k ....
_..
oo[-
"'":"-.-...:.:.:.,.._..,.
_'__
Ill
IIII
III
lq_IO3A A_O"Iptm x_IAI 1_ osImD
III
ptm 'q_o_dd
IIII
III
._m
00[
V aoA_Od :_Z; [opoIAI lo!_mo"I
(s/p_a) Louonboa4
zO[
III
tO[
I
Illl
o0[
I
IIll
t-OI
I
IIII
z-O[
I
Illl
c-O[
I
Illl
_-0[
o0[
tO[
',.,,,"
"--....
...
".:/,:
::
--
uop,uaoIoaoV l_aOlw] ol zoppn_t :osuo
oa_ _Iuz_..qV l_ZOlw]
cO[
_.
t,O[
A.7
Linear-quadratic
The contents
Control
of this subsection
Results
of the Appendix
MATLAB script to compute
are:
linear quadratic
controller
for longitudinal
pitch control
controller
for lateral/directional
Simulab block diagrams

Frequency domain analysis
Performance simulation
Graphs of performance
results
Boeing 747
McDonnell
Douglas F-4C
Learjet Model 24
MATLAB script to compute linear quadratic
control
SIMULAB block diagrams

Frequency domain analysis
Performance simulation
Graphs of performance results
Learjet Model 24, flight condition
Both the analyses and simulations use SIMULAB block diagrams. The block diagrams
automatically use the dynamics parameters and the feedback gain that are computed in MATLAB.
The open loop transfer function evaluation is performed by linearizing a SIMULAB block diagram
with the appropriate feedback path cut. For these case studies, the path is either the elevator, the
aileron, or the rudder.
rA_
BLANK NOT FILMED

167
%LINEAR
QUADRATIC
%Augment
%for
aircraft
zero
format
REGULATOR
dynamics
steady-state
short
Aaug=[Alo,
SOLUTION
with
TO
an
AIRCRAFT
integral
PITCH
CONTROL
state
error.
0*ones(4,1);[0
0 0
0]]
Baug=[Blo;0]
Caug=[Clo(l,
Daug=Dlo
:)
0]
(i, : )
evaug=eig
(Aaug)
%Compute
feedback
%the
steady-state
%Weight
only
%states
so
the
pitch
that
%weighting
if
gains
for the
augmented
solution
for the
linear,
in
the
the
rate,
gains
pitch
on
the
workspace
angle
speed
(a.k.a.)
aircraft
quadratic
and
pitch
states
stack,
dynamics
using
regulator.
integral
are
if
small.
they
Use
exist.
exist('Qaug')*exist('Raug')~=l,
Qaug=diag([0
i])
Raug=Baug'*Baug
end;
%Compute
feedback
gains
%selected
error
and
[Kr, S ] =lqr
Kr
(Aaug,
Baug,
evcl=eig
for
control
Qaug,
the
augmented
weightings
Raug)
dynamics
using
and
the
MATLAB
the
function
(Aaug-Baug*Kr)
%Compute
and
plot
open
%Note
that
Col
and
Dol
%evaluates
GH
rather
loop
have
than
frequency
response.
minus
signs
so that
-GH
(see
block
"bode"
diagram).
[Aol,Bol,Col,Dol]=linmod('RegulatorOL');
[mgol,phol]=bode(Aol,Bol,-Col,-Dol,
l,om);
clg;
subplot
if
(211)
exist
loglog
elseif
( 'mgollast'
(om,
) *exist
[mgol,mgollast
mgol0]
) ==I,
);
exist('mgollast')==l,
loglog(om,
else
[mgol,mgollast]);
loglog(om,
end;
mgol);
title('Open
Loop
Linear
xlabel('Frequency
if
( 'mgol0'
Quadratic
Regulator
Frequency
(rad/s)');ylabel('Magnitude');
exist('phollast')*exist('phol0')==l,
semilogx(om,
elseif
[phol,phollast
phol0]);
exist('phollast')==l,
semilogx(om,
else
semilogx(om,
end;
xlabel('Frequency
[phol,phollast]);
phol);
(rad/s)');ylabel('Phase
(deg)');
168
Response');
"lqr".
"I
C
Difference
Mux
r _.
state Erro
"" _;_
r_
Pitch
Integrator
OPEN
LOOP
ANALYSIS
OF A LINEAR-QUADRATIC
=j
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft
vl
in
ECI
eVma
tad
Integral Gain
REGULATOR
Sum
FOR AIRCRAFT
LONGITUDINAL
DYNAMIC
Constant
DeMux _
w Gain
To Workspace3
/
0.1 rad Step |
State
sp
error
Erro
14_
_
_._
To Workspace4
_
Clock
- _
To Workspace2_
To Workspace
L._..I _
Error Scope
,_qGain
_mJ
_
Elevator
I Y = Cx+Du
Command
Aircraft
__...._
Pitch
Reg States
Pitch Gain
_(b,i
t/=
I_.__
''_"
+
I
Sum
Integrator
SIMULATION
OF
LINEAR-QUADRATIC
x' = Ax+Bo
REGULATOR
Integral
FOR
Gain
AIRCRAFT
states
To Workspacel
LONGITUDINAL
DYNAMIC
Linear
quadratic
28
1993:
May
Ruu=
747
"s"
(Qxx)
0
at
"d"
4.0817e+01
diag
controller
Boeing
3. 4183e+02
flight
conditions
-p6.3480e+02
=
0
Mr =
-i. 1353e-03
I. 9992e-03
-8. 3901e-01
-9. 1237e-01
-i. 5652e-01
-6. 5992e-05
5.2964e-04
-I. 4940e-01
-5. 4586e-01
-5. 4087e-02
-i. 6488e-04
3.5187e-04
-i .2544e-01
-3.2152e-01
-3. 9690e-02
evcll=
-4.7744e-01+
6. 1289e-01i
-4. 7744e-01-
6. 1289e-01i
-2. 7794e-02
-1.2530e-01+
I. 9079e-01i
-1.2530e-01-
I. 9079e-01i
evcl2=
-4. 7196e-01+
1.2373e+00i
-4. 7196e-01-
1.2373e+00i
-I. 5814e-02
-8. 1573e-02+
8. 3750e-02i
-8. 1573e-02-
8. 3750e-02i
evcl3=
-5. 8381e-01+
i. 0976e+00i
-5. 8381e-01-
I. 0976e+00i
-5.2319e-03
-9. 5320e-02+
i. i139e-01i
-9. 5320e-02-
I. I139e-01i
171
(s) ore!
OOI
06
!
08
!
OL
09
O_
017
O_
0/;
OI
T
0
t_
-.
J.
1.
gI'O
(s) oug.,L
OOI
06
08
OL
09
0_;
017
I
0_;
0_;
OI
I
_0"0
suo!l!puoD
lq_!kI
_ aoj SaOllOalUOD 03
Lt, L _lm..oo_I
I'O
(s) ore!
(s) om!
OOI
OOI
05
05
._.
"'
-5I
Z;
-OI-
t'
oxl
I
saoIIOalUOD0"I L_L _u!ooff
9
(s) om!
OOI
00[
05
0
0
>
-OI
ot
O'Q
Z;'O
5I
(s) om!,L
OOI
Og
00[
o
_0"0
IO'O
4
4
EO'O
,_._,,_. _
" "_
" ".........
_.
['0
l ;"
- EO'O
,
g['O
s-tollo-tluoD Or'[ L17L_u!ao_t
(s) ore!&
(s) ore!
OOI
OOI
Og
J
/I
II
,'"
.."
170"0
_,
Og
,
Og_-
O_
.......
..'
.," ..""
,'.."|
<
|';I
II
I I
II
II
o17
O9
10 6
--
,,Op,en Loop Linear
I III
Quadrat!c
III
Regulator
I
Frequency
Ill
Response
III
I I
10 3
-.o.
%
,%
'.
10 o
10-3
IIIII
IIII
10-3
10-4
IIII
10-2
III
IIII
IIII
10 o
101
II
10 2
(rad/s)
7,4,7 LQ Contro!!ersfor
Boein8
10-1
Frequency
300
3 ,Fli ght,Conditions,,,,
Ill
200
100
i
.'''''"
.,llr
-100
-200 i
10-4
III
10-3
! I
II
10-2
IIII
10-1
Frequency
IIII
10 o
(rad/s)
IIII
10 a
III
10 2
Linear
quadratic
28
1993:
May
Ruu=
controller
McDonnell
Douglas
"s"
"d"
8.2823e+01
2.7471e+03
diag
(Qxx)
F-4C
at
flight
conditions
,,p,,
3.2182e+03
Mr =
-3.1177e-04
7.4538e-04
-3.9478e-01
-4.5979e-01
-i.0988e-01
1.2293e-04
2.4100e-04
-1.9405e-02
-2.2510e-01
-1.9079e-02
1.1595e-03
2.7233e-05
-6.5360e-03
-4.8405e-02
1.7628e-02
evcll
-3.2772e-01+
4.8526e+00i
-3.2772e-01-
4.8526e+00i
-2.8641e-02+
3.9603e-02i
-2.8641e-02-
3.9603e-02i
-1.2046e-02
evcl2=
-6.4453e-01+
-6.4453e-01-
2.7815e+00i
2.7815e+00i
-3.5108e-03
-8.8100e-02+
7.5306e-02i
-8.8100e-02-
7.5306e-02i
evlc3=
-4.7276e-01+
6.5055e-01i
-4.7276e-01-
6.5055e-01i
-4.1305e-02
-2.3426e-01+
2.0184e-01i
-2.3426e-01-
2.0184e-01i
176
(s) otu!
00[
06
08
OL
09
1'
O_
017
,
OE
_
O_
_
O[
,
_0"00
__.A
J.
m-'
_['0
(s) otu!,L
O0[
06
08
OL
i
0_;
09
017
I
Og
I
OZ;
O[
0
ffO'O-
.....
.-..-...-..-:.-..-...-..-..-...................................
*,
."" _
-|
"t
'
'
suo!l!puoD _
'
'
E .tog s.mllOalUOD 0i
D_,-_IG_
'
-t'o
'
!;['O
0
001
O,g
.........
_-----'--"
O01
Og
09_
.
/ !
' .. i
O[
s:taIIO 1
'......
Z:
D 0"I _)lz-d Ol_

(s) ota!
(s) ou_.
OOI
OOI
Og
g'O-
-9"0-
O!;
<
_.
""w"--
iI
_--
_'l. I
II
II
--
i I
i,,,
-VO-
>
o*
II I
_1
I
--
.'**
;
EO-
_"
.t
."
-I
m
.
.
..,.,"
,.,,.o"
,..o,,.
Z;'O
,
"%.
60
200
..o..oOO.....
100
40
3
o
" _'_ _ ......
.....
>
20
..
.
-100
|:
,,
s
",
,'
,,,, _
._ S'_
.o, _"
11
II
II
II
IIII
Illl
I s_
.."
I'".
_._"
o_,,q
............
""
s "
., s
"'
_s
s S
I "
--
j
_. _. "
--
-200
-20
-300
50
100
50
100
Time (s)
Time (s)
0.15
0.08
MD F-4C LQ Controllers
_"
0.06
r_
0.04
0.02
f
0
0
,..
-0.02
0
50
Time (s)
)0
100
Time (s)
(s/puJ)
Ill
_ouonboJ,_q
0
00[
OOE
II
0017
(s/pg:O ,(ouonboa_l
_OI
tO[
1'l.l..l
IIII
oOI
I
IIII
t-O[
I
IIII
vOI
I
IIII
c-O[
I
III
.... _K ........
o0[
_o
-Trll
|III
IIII
osuodso_l _uonbo_I
IIII
IIII
aOl_ln_O_l _!l_p_n_) _ou!q
III
dooq uod 0
Linear
quadratic
28
1993:
May
Ruu=
controller
Learjet
Model
24
"s"
"d"
7.0040e+01
1.4479e+03
diag
(Qxx)
0
at
flight
conditions
,,p,,
2. 8194e+03
Kr =
-8.9272e-04
1.5410e-03
-1.4820e-01
-4.4474e-01
-i.1949e-01
-1.5093e-04
2.1149e-04
-1.9179e-02
-1.6567e-01
-2.6280e-02
-1.4555e-04
1.4727e-04
-1.6057e-02
-1.2080e-01
-1.8833e-02
evcll
-9.3324e-01+
1.3187e+00i
-9.3324e-01-
1.3187e+00i
-3.7861e-02
-1.5995e-01+
2.6089e-01i
-1.5995e-01-
2.6089e-01i
evcl2 =
-i.0154e+00+
2.6362e+00i
-l.0154e+00-1.4053e-02
2.6362e+00i
-i. I070e-01+
1.3727e-01i
-I.I070e-01-
1.3727e-01i
evcl3=
-I.1882e+00+
2.6982e+00i
-l.1882e+00-
2.6982e+00i
-1.7549e-02
-i.0674e-01+
1.4303e-01i
-I.0674e-01-
1.4303e-01i
181
(s) om!,L
00[
06
08
OL
09
O_
017
T
O_
0_;
OI
1'
e-'"
t_
gO'O
_I'O
L__
(s) om!,L
OOI
06
I
08
!
OL
09
I
OK
017
OE
O[
I
_.,t.
o
=,
".._
.._
-._
.._
u
i
suo!l.tpuoD
lq_!H
I
t_Iaoj SaOllOalUO
D 0II
I
17EIopoIAI
lo !_
'I
_0"0 _"
I'O
(s) ore!A,
0
OOI
O_
OOI
_-
_
<
_.
t,_'J_'_
-o_-
SaOllO.nUOD0I l_Z[opoIAI lo!_o"I
9
(s) ore!
(s) ore!
00[
OOI
O_
05
<
II
II
II
II
-5
.II
J
--
................
- ........ _...... =._,,.,
__/_
>
I"
.r i
I
1 ^I
_
_"
_'0-
o
O'Q
_'0
0_;
00[
OOI
0
0
Z;O'O
-] gO'O
['0
'
17EIopOIAIlo!_ol
SaOllOnUOD0I
N.._.
1,o"o
_"
90"0
80"0
_;['0
(s) oua!,L
OOI
00[
Og
OOZl-
,"r]
.o''
...'"
.... "
....
""
s
.."'"
S j
S
.ff
s
f
,..''"'
....,'""
"',,
l\".i
,.
"i
::i
-o[
_.
- 0?;
<
-0E
I"1
II
II
W
00[-,
"..%
l--to
"..._
- 0"_
0_;
<
o
(s/pua) ,_3uonboa_I
_0[
Ill
IIII
[-OI
o0[
tOI
i
ill
i I
lilt
z-OI
I
till
00[-
_...a_TX.
-t
_
r_
00[
00_;
III
h_o'I p[m x_IAI1_ os!ruD ptm 'qo_o_dd V _aA_Od :t'i_ IoPIAIla.Lma'-I_ Ioj s_aIIO_lUOD
I
III
I I
lit
t i
IIII
(s/p_)
IIII
Ill
,_ouonboa_I
oOI
Ill
IIIll
Illl
lilt
osuodso_l A_uonbo_I _ol_In_O_l _!l_p_nO
Ilil
_ou!q
II;I
doo"I uodo
_0[
%LINEAR
QUADRATIC
%Copy
aircraft
format
short
REGULATOR
SOLUTION
TO
AIRCRAFT
TURN
CONTROL
dynamics
e
Aaug=Ala;
Baug=Bla;
Caug=Cla
(2 : 3, : ) ;
Daug=Dla
(2:3,
:) ;
evaug=eig
(Aaug)
%Compute
feedback
%the
%weight
only
%weightings
if
gains
steady-state
exist
the
in
( ' Qaug'
Raug=diag([l
end;
[vcl,
evcl]
evcl=diag
[Wncl,
yaw
rate
(a.k.a.
( 'Raug'
dynamics
linear,
using
quadratic
states.
stack),
regulator.
Use
if
they
) ~=I,
0])
gains
for
and control
(Aaug,
=eig
Baug,
Qaug,
the
augmented
weightings,
Raug)
(Aaug-Baug*Kr)
dynamics
using
the
and
the
function
(evcl)
Zcl] =damp
(evcl)
[Wncl, Zcl]
abs (vcl)
%Compute
and
plot
open
loop
frequency
response.
%Note
that
Col
and
Dol
have
minus
signs
so that
"bode"
%evaluates
GH
rather
than
-GH
(see block
diagram).
%The
%and
loop
once
is
at
broken
twice:
once
the
rudder
command.
at
the
aileron
[Aol,Bol,Col,Dol]=linmod('RollyawOLa');
[mgola,phola]=bode(Aol,Bol,-Col,-Dol,
l,om);
clg;
subplot(221);
if exist('mgolalast')*exist('mgola0')
loglog(om,
elseif
[mgola,mgolalast
==I,
mgola0]);
exist('mgolalast')==l,
loglog(om,
else
[mgola,mgolalast]);
loglog(om,
end;
mgola);
title('Open
Loop
xlabel('Frequency
LQR
FR:
Aileron');
(rad/s)');ylabel('Magnitude');
subplot(223);
if exist('pholalast')*exist('phola0')
semilogx(om,
elseif
exist.
i]) ;
feedback
error
[Kr, S] =lqr
Kr
aircraft
the
and
workspace
) *exist
0
the
for
sideslip
the
Qaug=diag([l
%Compute
%selected
for
solution
[phola,pholalast
==I,
phola0]);
exist('pholalast')==l,
semilogx(om,
else
[phola,pholalast]);
186
command
_lqr".
semilogx
end;
(om, phola)
xlabel('Frequency
[Aol, Bol,
[mgolr,
pholr
subplot
if
(om,
') ;ylabel('Phase
( 'RollyawOLr'
(Aol, Bol,
(deg)
') ;
);
-Co i, -Do i, 1, om) ;
('mgolrlast')
loglog
elseif
Dol ] =linmod
] =bode
(222)
exist
(rad/s)
Col,
*exist
[mgolr,
( 'mgolr0'
mgolrlast
mgolr0
) ==i,
]) ;
exist('mgolrlast')==l,
loglog
else
(om,
loglog
[mgolr,mgolrlast]
(om, mgolr)
);
end;
title
( 'Open
Loop
LQR
xlabel('Frequency
subplot
if
(224)
exist
Rudder'
);
') ;ylabel('Magnitude')
( 'pholrlast'
semilogx(om,
elseif
FR:
(rad/s)
) *exist
( 'pholr0'
[pholr,pholrlast
) ==i,
pholr0])
exist('pholrlast')--=l,
semilogx
else
semilogx
(om,
[pholr,
(om, pholr)
pholrlast]
);
end;
xlabel('Frequency
(rad/s)
') ;ylabel('Phase
187
(deg)
') ;
Learjet
Model
24
deg/s
Open
loop
-2.7189e-02+
eigenvalues
2.2741e+00i
-2.7189e-02-
2.2741e+00i
turn
in
flight
condition
-2.2733e+00
-8.5389e-04
-5.0717e-20
_diag(Qaug)'=
1.0000e-01
Raug
=
1.0001e+03
1.0256e+02
1.0256e+02
2.6065e+03
Feedback
Kr =
1.0000e+05
gains
6.4222e-03
8.6736e-02
1.8039e-03
4.1943e-02
Closed
loop
-1.8701e+01
2.7898e-01
1.0996e+00
7.1804e-02
-6.1807e+00
7.3053e-03
1.8803e-03
eigenvalues
-1.3476e+00+
1.5102e+00i
-1.3476e+00-
1.5102e+00i
-2.6708e+00
-I.1946e-ii
Closed
loop
1.8701e+01
2.0240e+00
natural
frequencies
1.0000e+00
damping
ratios
6.6579e-01
2.0240e+00
6.6579e-01
2.6708e+00
1.0000e+00
1.1946e-ii
1.0000e+00
Closed
loop
9.9837e-01
and
eigenvectors
9.9044e-01
9.9044e-01
9.7748e-01
4.1873e-Ii
4.7360e-02
1.2365e-01
1.2365e-01
1.9765e-01
3.1258e-13
3.1748e-02
4.8493e-04
4.8493e-04
6.5683e-05
1.1942e-ii
2.5325e-03
6.1092e-02
6.1092e-02
7.4003e-02
2.6177e-02
1.6977e-03
2.3958e-04
2.3958e-04
2.4593e-05
9.9966e-01
188
Jb.
v
DeMux
*i
+_
Outport
Aileron Gains
"_ +
m
I
Aileron
DeMux
Error
Aileron J=
x' = Ax+Bul
Mux m
v
Constan
Command_.M.._
Differen,
_e
Command
Mux
Mux
v
==,,=
v
4-
4-
4-
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft
Rudder Gains
Rudder
DeMux
OPEN LOOP ANALYSIS
OF A LINEAR,
QUADRATIC
Rudder
Command
REGULATOR
FOR AIRCRAFT
LATERAL
DYNAMIC
_)eMuxl
+1
+1
+1 m
+;
Aileron Gains
m
m
Aileron
DeMux
Error
Aileron
Command
Mux
Constan
Differen_
_e
y
Cx+Du
Aircraft
Mux
x' = Ax+Bu 1
v
Inport
w.-
m
DeMux
Outport
Rudder Gains
v
4-
Rudder
DeMux
OPEN
LOOP
ANALYSIS
OF
A LINEAR,
QUADRATIC
Rudder
Command
REGULATOR
FOR
AIRCRAFT
LATERAL
DYNAMIC
_rro_I----1"--_
I .rror
_ i__l__xl_
To Workspace2
Error
Mux
_+
DeMux
.
.
_
Error
DeMux
[__--
_x
m
Error
Constant
I[_
Differen
aux
Zl,ro
Aileron
Command
',e
' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft
Command
Mux
State Scope
DeMux
To Workspace3
Workspacel
Aileron
DeMux
=._
v
+
sp
delta
states
14-
To Workspace
Rudder Gains
time
Clock
To Workspace4
v
Rudder
DeMux
SIMULATION
OF
LINEAR-QUADRATIC
REGULATOR
Rudder
Command
FOR
AIRCRAFT
LATERAL
DYNAMICS
(s) otu!
00[
OOI
Og
>
O_
t_
0
m
.J
OQ
17
0
(s) _mt.
OOI
00[
Og
T
I,..a,
=L
m
O_
t_
m
(s)OmLL
OOI
O_
OOI
0
m
o_
._
O_
I
O_
OgT
OOI
00_
O_
Og_
(s) ore!
(s) om!,L
OOI
Og
!
0_'
t_
O'Q
OOI
0
O_
I
0
0[i--O
I
i-o_
I
, - OZ
t_
- 0_;
I
uam s_op lo!_o"I
017
X)
0
t_
Learjet
0.2
3 deg/s turn
t_
0.1
_o
-1
<
._,,q
-0.1-
-2
o
ra_
-0.2
50
50
100
100
Time (s)
Time (s)
250
0_
200
o
o
o
O
o
>
150
100
5O
-40
50
Time (s)
100
50
Time (s)
100
(s/p_a) ._uonbo.k4
(s/p_a) ._ouonbo.IH
I
_...,.'=--_
[-0[
_0[
t-O[
_0[
II
-oo[-
00[
- 00_
O'Q
J
II
II
'
OOg
t-OI
II
(s/pe.O ._:3uonbo.k4
(s/p_a) 2(ouonboad
_0[
_0[
t,-OI
t-OI
_-0[
I
II
_-OI
_:-01
t-O[
o0I
K
o0[
_0[
_
m
m
II
aoppn_I :_.4 _lOq
doo"I
uodo
= _OI
:::I i
II
uoaoI!V :R_q_lOq doo'-I uo cto
:0[
_.

Lera 24

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lera 24

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

93122-01

Inner Loop Flight Control

and John A. Sorensen

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

Inputs to the ILFCS

The FCS Design

of the Steps in the Algorithm

phase ends with specialists

of one or more specified

Wing Wt. Eqs.

and initial designs can come from historical

had the following

an inner loop flight

the costs and benefits

for the FCS architecture

and the design

loop FCS design

data such as attitude,

configurationlayout.Theflight conditionsareusedto convertdimensionlessderivativesto

Control surface sizing and control

This report summarizes

into the Appendices.

inner loop flight control design algorithm

Inner Loop Flight Control Module Interface Requirements

the inner loop control

for an inner loop control

loop flight control

input to the inner loop control design algorithm.

the aircraft design modules to provide a basis for updating

The interfacerequirementsfor theILFCSdesignmodulearediscussedin two parts.Subsection

The default parameter

that are necessary

Default Parameter Sets

with this initial

Most civilian aircraft can be mapped

into the fil"st three

classes. The case studies presented in this

The default design parameter

and rate limits)

The usual design objective

Inputs from the User

Inputs from ACSYNT

These are used to compute

At some flight conditions

Outputs of the ILFCS Design Process

Outputs to the User

The plots of time responses

The main driver for ACSYNT

Closed loop performance metricvalues

Control system gains

Actuator and sensorrequirementsforconstraintdefinition

The goal isto establisha capabilityto use thedependencies between aircraft

and metrics are just added to the ones COPES/CONMIN

The local optimization

change stability and control derivatives

and natural frequencies

This section presented the interface

This section outlines the procedures

are the mechanisms

that are used to

produce forces and moments

become more complex,

the same for each of these