16 views

Uploaded by g884358

A Superposition Approach For Determining Lift Distributions On Maneuvering Airplanes With Applications to Post Stall (M.W. Sutton).pdf

- wheel_simulation_wing-light_090430.pdf
- FLIGHT SIMULATION OF A HIGH WING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
- 1-s2.0-S0888327015005452-main
- Wheel Simulation Wing-light 090430
- Syllabus
- Bernoulli's Principle Disputation.
- Hydro Dynamic Forces - Copy
- Flight Laws
- quadrotor.pdf
- 21
- [1]1-s2.0-S1877705814006328-main
- Water Control Products Crank Lift Spec Sheet
- 08 Structural Loads
- Wings, Round Cylinders and Circulation
- Flight Simulation Poster
- 48701
- Basic Fire Alarm Training
- Aerodynamics
- PENILAIAN KURIKULUM 2
- Unsteady Airfoil in Supersonic Flow

You are on page 1of 98

on Maneuvering Airplanes with Applications to Post Stall. (Under the direction of Dr. Ashok

Gopalarathnam.)

Simulation of ight dynamics in post-stall conditions requires the ability to handle many

non-linearities. These cannot be modeled with traditional approaches. For attached-ow ight

conditions, most methods for simulation of ight dynamics use low delity approximations

such as linearizations, decoupling of longitudinal with lateral/directional motions, and the use

of stability derivatives. Other methods include high delity representations through the use

of lookup tables obtained from wind tunnel and ight testing. The drawback to using these

higher delity methods is that they require expensive apparatus which might not be accessible.

Without look-up tables or the use of stability derivatives, the lift distributions need to be found

at each step of the simulation. The use of in-the-loop aerodynamic load prediction such as vortex

lattice methods (VLM), are computationally expensive and are too slow for real time simulation.

Plus, these methods are not suitable for post-stall ight. Thus a dierent approach is required

that is appropriate for post-stall and is fast enough for real-time simulation. Previous research

eorts have included these non-linear eects but require the total lift distribution at each step

of the ODE. To address this need, a method using superposition of basic and additional lift

distributions has been developed. An important contribution to this eort was appropriately

modeling the eects of sideslip and angular velocity using superposition of lift distributions.

Using a linear lift curve, instantaneous values of the aircraft velocities and angular rates are

used as inputs and scaled using superposition to nd the overall lift distribution. For near

or post-stall ight, these lift distributions are corrected using the post-stall prediction method

and the output lift distribution is integrated to nd the forces and moments on the aircraft.

This method is suitable for full six degree-of-freedom (DOF) ight, but, in its current stage,

does not include eects from sweep, control surface deections, the body, or propulsive devices.

Therefore, while further eorts are needed, the method shows promise and is rapid enough for

real-time ight simulation.

c Copyright 2010 by Matthew Wesley Sutton

All Rights Reserved

A Superposition Approach for Determining Lift Distributions

on Maneuvering Airplanes with Applications to Post Stall

by

Matthew Wesley Sutton

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University

in partial fulllment of the

requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

Aerospace Engineering

Raleigh, North Carolina

2010

APPROVED BY:

Dr. Larry M. Silverberg Dr. Charles E Hall Jr.

Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam

Chair of Advisory Committee

DEDICATION

To my mother and father, sister, family, and friends, who provided me with endless support

over the years.

ii

BIOGRAPHY

Matthew W. Sutton was born to Mark and Lynn Sutton February 2nd, 1985 in Clinton, North

Carolina. The younger brother of Gina Sutton, Matthew lived in Clinton until the fall following

his graduation from Clinton High School in 2003. That August, he moved to Raleigh where

he sought his Bachelors of Science at North Carolina State University (NCSU) majoring in

Engineering Undecided. As a small child, Matthew had been fascinated with ight and aircraft

design, and while matriculating he rekindled his fascination and began his studies in Aerospace

Engineering (AE). In the summer of 2004, he briey moved to Wilmington, NC to fulll his

physics requirements at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. In the spring of 2006

he participated in the Study Abroad program at NCSU, relocating to Cork, Ireland for the

semester and studying at University College Cork. Upon his return to NC, he began a two-part

internship at B/E Aerospace in Winston-Salem, NC. As a senior, Matthew participated in a two-

semester aero-senior design project where he functioned as a stability and control, empennage

design, procurement, and fuselage construction specialist. His team presented in the AIAA

Southeastern Conference design-build-y competition and earned third place honors. In the

summer of 2008, Matthew graduated with a BS in AE boasting Cum Laude honors. Following

graduation, Matthew began his graduate studies pursuing his MS in AE. In the fall of 2008,

Matthew joined the Applied Aerodynamics group under Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam. As an

undergraduate, Dr. Gopalarathnam had been Matthews most respected professor and one he

relied on for guidance and direction.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ashok Gopalarathnam, for his patience and guidance.

His insight and support have been a foundation of my success at both the undergraduate and

graduate levels.

I would also like to thank my committee members for their continued support. Dr. Larry

Silverbergs door has always been open, and he has received my interest and questions with

thorough and thoughtful feedback. It has also been a pleasure working with Dr. Charles Hall.

The conditioning and experience I received in Senior Design helped strengthen my commitment

to problem solving and condence as an engineer.

I am also grateful for the support given by other faculty including Dr. Paul Ro, Cheryl

Tran and Dr. Cho Tran, as well as the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

at North Carolina State University.

I would like to thank the other students in the Applied Aerodynamics Group (specically

Kiran Ramesh, Joe Johnston, and Sriram Pakkam), along with Matt Hazard formerly with the

Flight Research Group, Scott Hays and Hunter Hughes from the Robust Controls groups, as

well as Alex Hartl.

I would also like to give a special thanks to my wonderful girlfriend Kat, who was always

quick to come by to fuel my late nights in times of need with food and caeine (love you!).

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2 Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Use of Superposition to Obtain Lift Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.1 Review of Lift Superposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Post-stall aerodynamic prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2.1 Illustration of the Decambering Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2.2 Decambering Applied to a 3D Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2.3 Multiple intersections with inclined trajectory line . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 Improvements to the Decambering Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3.1 Lift Superposition for Improved Computational Eciency . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 3 Simulation of Forces and Moments Using Superposition . . . . . . . 15

3.1 AVL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2 Denition of Model used for Verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.3 Conventions and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4 Integration of Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.5 Longitudinal Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.5.1 Modeling the Eect of Section Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.5.2 Modeling Pitch Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.5.3 Pitch Rate Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.6 Lateral/Directional Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.6.1 Modeling Sideslip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.6.2 Sideslip Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.6.3 Modeling Roll Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.6.4 Roll Rate Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.6.5 Modeling Yaw Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.6.6 Yaw Rate Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.6.7 Mixed Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.7 Stability Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 4 Results for Dynamics in Pre-Stall and Post-Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.1 Fixed Wing Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.2 Linear Modeling of Aircraft Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.2.1 Phugoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.2.2 Dutch Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

v

4.2.3 Spiral Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.3 Post-Stall Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.3.1 Post-Stall Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter 5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix A More Examples with Yaw Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

A.1 Varying Yaw Rate at

trim

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

A.2 Varying with Constant Yaw Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Limits on angular rate inputs in AVL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 3.2 Aircraft Conguration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3.3 Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and q . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 3.4 Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 3.5 Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and p

. . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 3.6 Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and r

. . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 3.7 Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: , , and p

. . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 3.8 Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: , p

, and r

. . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.9 Stability Derivative Comparison: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 3.10 Stability Derivative Comparison: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 3.11 Stability Derivative Comparison: p

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3.12 Stability Derivative Comparison: q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3.13 Stability Derivative Comparison: r

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 4.1 Initial Conditions for Phugoid Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 4.2 Initial conditions for dutch roll motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 4.3 Initial conditions for spiral mode motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table A.1 C

x

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table A.2 C

y

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table A.3 C

z

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table A.4 C

L

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table A.5 C

l

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table A.6 C

m

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table A.7 C

n

Comparison for Varying r at Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table A.8 C

x

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table A.9 C

y

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table A.10 C

z

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table A.11 C

l

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table A.12 C

m

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table A.13 C

n

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Schematic diagram of decambering functions 1 and 2 (

1

and

2

are neg-

ative as shown and exaggerated for clarity). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 2.2 (a) Illustration of the dierences in computation of the residuals. (b)

Illustration of the dierent ways in which trajectory lines can intersect

the airfoil C

l

- curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3.1 Geometry plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 3.2 Breakdown of Surface Loading: = 3

, q = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 3.3 Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, = 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.4 Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, p

= 0.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 3.5 Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, r

= 0.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3.6 Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, = 5

, p

= 0.05 . . . . . . . 41

Figure 3.7 Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, p

= 0.05, r

= 0.05 . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.8 Lift and Pitching Moment with change in Angle of Attack . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 3.9 Side force, Rolling Moment, and Yawing Moment Curves with change in

Sideslip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3.10 Side force, Rolling Moment, and Yawing Moment Curves with change in

Roll Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 3.11 Lift and Pitching Moment Curves with change in Pitch Rate . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3.12 Side force, Rolling Moment, and Yawing Moment Curves with change in

Roll Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 4.1 Flow chart for pre-stall aerodynamic prediction at each time step . . . . . 58

Figure 4.2 Comparison between the superposition approach and AVL for the phugoid

mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 4.3 Comparison between the superposition approach and AVL for the Dutch

Roll mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 4.4 Comparison between the superposition approach and AVL for the Spiral

mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 4.5 Flow chart for post-stall aerodynamic prediction at each time step . . . . 64

Figure 4.6 Lift curves for the post-stall examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 4.7 View of the ight paths from the side (x vs. z). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.8 View of the ight paths from the above (x vs. y). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 4.9 Spanwise C

l

distributions after 1 second for the three examples. . . . . . . 67

Figure A.1 Breakdown of Surface Loading:

trim

=3.5

/s, r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure A.2 Breakdown of Surface Loading:

trim

=3.5

/s, r=100

/s . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure A.3 Breakdown of Surface Loading:

trim

=3.5

/s, r=145

/s . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure A.4 Breakdown of Surface Loading: =5

/s, r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure A.5 Breakdown of Surface Loading: =10

/s, r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure A.6 Breakdown of Surface Loading: =15

/s, r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure A.7 Breakdown of Surface Loading: =20

/s, r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

viii

Figure A.8 Breakdown of Surface Loading: =25

/s, r=50

/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

ix

NOMENCLATURE

Angle of attack

a

Additional circulation due to changes in

b

Basic circulation due to variations in twist

Circulation

a,1

Additional circulation due to C

L

= 1

Induced velocity along the freestream direction

C

L

Total conguration lift coecient

V

Air density

u, v, w Body axis velocities

p, q, r Body axis angular rates about x, y, z

c Chord distribution

C

lb,twist

Basic loading due to spanwise variations in twist

EOM Equations of motion

V LM Vortex lattice method

LLT Lifting line theory

Decambering variable (1-reduction in , 2-decambering of trailing edge)

C

l

Section lift coecient

C

m

Section pitching moment coecient

2

Angular location along the chord of an airfoil

x

2

Position along the chord of an airfoil

F 2N Dimensional vector of residuals

J 2Nx2N Jacobian

x 2N Vector containing correction factors to bring F closer to zero

(C

ls

)

j

Starting values of section C

l

for calculating residuals

(C

ms

)

j

Starting values of section C

m

for calculating residuals

(C

lp

)

j

Purturbed values of section C

l

for calculating residuals

(C

mp

)

j

Purturbed values of section C

m

for calculating residuals

(C

lt

)

j

Target values of section C

l

for calculating residuals

(C

mt

)

j

Target values of section C

m

for calculating residuals

C

lb,0

Zero-decambering basic C

l

distribution due to twist

C

lb,i

Incremental C

lb

due to a unit

1

a Wing lift curve slope

b,0

Wing angle of attack corresponding to C

lb,0

x

b,i

Wing angle of attack corresponding to C

lb,i

(J

l1

)

ij

Element of jacobian

(

dC

l

d

)

traj,i

Slope of trajectory line

C

X

, C

Y

, C

Z

Body force coecients

p, q, r Non-dimensional roll, pitch, and yaw rates about the body axis

Dihedral

C

x

, C

y

, C

z

Body axes

C

Ltrim

Trim lift coecient

trim

Trim angle of attack

q

W Weight

S Reference planform area

I

x

, I

y

, I

z

Moments of inertia about body axis frame

I

xz

Product of inertia

CG Center of gravity

d

L Elemental lift

ds Width of lattice

s Start of lattice

e End of lattice

N Number of elements

X, Y, Z Body axis forces

dy, dz Elemental lengths used for integration of loading

x

cg

, y

cg

, z

cg

Coordinates of the CG from reference point

C

D,0

Prole drag coecient

C

D

Drag coecient

b Reference span

l, m, n Moments about C

x

, C

y

, and C

z

C

l

, C

m

, C

n

Moment coecients

x

pitch

Pitch centroid

x

3c/4

Three quarter chord control point

a,1

Angle of attack for an additional loading of C

L

= 1

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction

Traditionally, simulation of ight dynamics makes use of either linearizations and the use of

aerodynamic stability derivatives

1, 2

or the use of look-up tables generated for a given air-

craft. In-the-loop aerodynamic calculation using even linear aerodynamic approaches such as

three-dimensional vortex-lattice or panel methods is computationally expensive. Besides these

methods are not suitable for post-stall ight conditions.

Simulation of ight dynamics at post-stall conditions continues to be an important goal.

3

Current approaches

3

to post-stall ight simulation typically involve summation of static eects,

such as angle of attack and control position, with dynamic eects, such as angular rate. For

transport aircraft, the typical practice

3

is to obtain static eects from wind tunnel measurements

and dynamic eects from empirical methods or from ight test data of small-amplitude dynamic

maneuvers.

The current research takes a dierent approach, in which post-stall aerodynamics of the

multiple-lifting-surface conguration is simulated at every time step of the solution of the ight

equations of motion (EOM). Given the instantaneous angles of attack and sideslip and the

angular-velocity components, the post-stall method predicts the aerodynamic forces and mo-

ments on the aircraft largely without the use of empiricism. Inputs to the aerodynamic predic-

tion method include planform-geometry details and lift and moment curves for all the airfoil

sections including post-stall information. The post-stall prediction method is based on a decam-

bering approach.

4

This approach, developed at NC State in 2006, which took several minutes to

evaluate a series of angle of attacks, was made signicantly faster

5

in 2008 using lift-distribution

superposition principles, which reduced the run time per angle of attack to a tenth of a second.

The following chapter provides a brief description of the recently developed iterative decam-

bering approach along the improvements made to the computational eciency which built a

foundation for the current methodology. In Chapter 3 the methodology for representation of the

aerodynamics using superposition is presented for six degree of freedom (DOF) ight experienc-

1

ing both longitudinal and lateral/directional motion. In Chapter 4 the non-linear dynamics are

compared with a widely used vortex lattice method (VLM) for verication in a linear regime,

and several post-stall examples are explored. The motivation behind the current research stems

from a necessity for a post-stall prediction method that can be used in conjunction with an

ordinary dierential equation (ODE) solver for a real-time ight simulation.

2

Chapter 2

Previous Work

The motivation behind the current research stems from a necessity for the development of a

method to nd the aerodynamic loading due to sideslip and angular velocities that an aircraft

experiences during six DOF ight. The previous research eorts have developed a post-stall

prediction method capable of modeling the aerodynamic loading due to changes in angle of

attack. If the loading aects of sideslip and angular velocity can be taken into account, the

load distribution an aircraft experiences can be summed to nd the total forces and moments

at each time step of the simulation. The integrated loading can then be used in conjunction

with an ODE solver for real-time ight simulation. The previous work having established a

foundation for the current methodology is discussed briey in this chapter.

2.1 Use of Superposition to Obtain Lift Distributions

This section includes background information on the elements of applied aerodynamics and

mathematics relevant to the development of the current method, namely lift superposition, and

is provided here for completeness.

2.1.1 Review of Lift Superposition

The concept of basic and additional lift distributions is described in several references.

68

The

use of this concept enables the determination of the lift distribution at any ight state using a

simple, semi-analytical approach.

Within the assumption of linear aerodynamics (linear C

l

- variation and linear C

l

- re-

lationship), the spanwise distribution of bound circulation (or alternatively, lift distribution)

over a wing can be expressed as a sum of two contributions: i) basic distribution,

b

(y), and ii)

additional distribution,

a

(y):

3

(y) =

b

(y) +

a

(y) (2.1)

The basic distribution,

b

, is the distribution at C

L

= 0, and is the result of spanwise vari-

ations in geometric twist, aerodynamic twist due to camber, and ap deections. Furthermore,

the

b

distributions due to twist, camber, or ap deection, scale linearly with that particular

parameter, and individual

b

distributions can be added to obtain the total

b

distribution. For

example, the total

b

due to wing twist, spanwise camber variation, and ap-angle variation is

simply the sum of the individual

b

distributions:

b

(y) =

b,twist

(y) +

b,camber

(y) +

b,flap

(y) (2.2)

The additional distribution,

a

, is due to changes to for the wing with zero geometric

and aerodynamic twist. It is, therefore, independent of geometric and aerodynamic twist, and

scales with wing C

L

. Thus, the additional distribution for C

L

= 1, written as

a,1

, can be

precomputed for a wing and used to compute the

a

for any C

L

, as follows:

a

(y) = C

L

a,1

(y) (2.3)

If the component of the induced velocities along the freestream direction, , are assumed to

be small compared to V

distribution:

L

(y) = (V

+ (y))(y) V

(y) (2.4)

which results in the following linear relationship between and the local lift coecient, C

l

:

C

l

(y) =

2(y)

c(y)V

(2.5)

It is, therefore, possible to write the spanwise C

l

distribution using superposition as follows:

C

l

(y) = C

lb,twist

(y) + C

lb,camber

(y) + C

lb,flap

(y)

+ C

L

C

la,1

(y) (2.6)

2.2 Post-stall aerodynamic prediction

The ability of linear aerodynamic methods such as lifting-line theory (LLT), Weissingers

method, and vortex-lattice methods (VLM) to successfully predict the lift and induced drag

4

behavior of medium to high aspect ratio wings is well established. In these methods, a linear lift

curve with a slope of approximately 2 per radian is typically assumed for the airfoil sections

that form the wings. For several decades, researchers have sought to extend the capability of

these linear prediction methods to include the aerodynamic analysis of wings with nonlinear

airfoil lift curves. These eorts were motivated by the desire to predict stall and post-stall

aerodynamic characteristics of wings using experimental or computational aerodynamic data

for the airfoil sections at post-stall conditions. It is recognized that the ow over a wing at post-

stall conditions is highly three dimensional and the use of a quasi-two-dimensional approach

represents a signicant approximation. The impetus for such a prediction method, however, is

provided by the need for rapid aerodynamic prediction capabilities for such high-alpha condi-

tions for aircraft stability and control, simulations, and in the early phases of vehicle design.

Furthermore, even high-order computational uid dynamics (CFD) techniques are only now

approaching the stage where they can be reliably used for high-alpha aerodynamic prediction.

These CFD high-alpha analyses, however, require massive computing resources and signicant

time for analysis at even a single angle of attack. Thus the search for rapid, albeit approximate,

approaches for stall and post-stall prediction of wings using known section data continues to

be of interest.

The traditional approaches for extending linear aerodynamic prediction methods to handle

nonlinear and post-stall airfoil lift curves can be broadly classied into two kinds: the iterative

-distribution approach

916

and the -correction approach.

17, 18

In the rst approach, a lift

distribution is rst assumed on the wing. The distribution is then iteratively corrected by

determining the eective- distribution using the nonlinear airfoil lift curve. In the second

approach, the deviation of the airfoil nonlinear lift curve from the potential-ow linear lift

curve is used to apply a correction to the local at each section of the wing. This scheme

proved to be more versatile since it was applicable to Weissingers method, VLM, as well as

lifting-line theory (LLT) formulations. As a result, it can be used on swept, low aspect ratio

wings and multiple-wing congurations.

The following sections provide brief descriptions of the more recently developed iterative

decambering approach along with the improvements made in the computational eciency.

2.2.1 Illustration of the Decambering Concept

In 2006 at NC State, Mukherjee and Gopalarathnam developed a decambering approach for

predicting post-stall aerodynamic characteristics of wings using known section data.

4

In this

approach, the chordwise camber distribution at each section of the wing is reduced to account

for the viscous eects at high angles of attack. This approach is similar in concept to the

-correction approach and can be incorporated in LLT, Weissingers method, and VLM. It

5

diers from the -correction approach in its capability to use both the C

l

and C

m

data for

the section, and in the use of a two-variable function for the decambering. Also, unlike all the

earlier methods, the approach in Ref. 4 uses a multidimensional Newton iteration that accounts

for the cross-coupling eects between the sections in predicting the decambering for each step

in the iteration. In addition, a novel scheme was developed for computing the residuals for

the iteration that brings to light multiple solutions at post-stall conditions during the iteration

process itself rather than as a consequence of using multiple starting solutions.

This section, adapted from Ref. 4 and included here for completeness, provides an illustration

of the decambering approach. It is illustrative to examine this approach for the two-dimensional

situation rst because the approach as applied to the ow past a three-dimensional nite wing

will be described in the following section.

With increasing angle of attack, the boundary layer on the upper surface of an airfoil

thickens and nally separates. It is this ow separation that causes the viscous C

l

and C

m

to deviate from the potential-ow theory predictions. These deviations can be related to the

eective change in the chordwise camber distribution due to the boundary-layer displacement

thickness and separation. If the eective decambering is taken into account, then a potential-

ow prediction for the decambered airfoil will closely match the viscous C

l

and C

m

for the

high- ow past the original airfoil shape. This decambering idea served as the basis for the

formulation of the current approach for the three-dimensional ow problem.

While the camber reduction due to the boundary layer on an airfoil can be determined from

computational analyses, no such detailed information is available from wind tunnel results.

Wind tunnel results for airfoils typically consist of only the C

l

- and C

m

- curves. This section

discusses the approach for determining an equivalent camber reduction from the C

l

- and

C

m

- data for an airfoil. More specically, the eective decambering for a particular is

computed using the deviations of the viscous C

l

and C

m

from the potential-ow predictions for

that airfoil. These deviations in C

l

and C

m

are denoted by C

l

and C

m

respectively.

In the current method, the eective decambering of an airfoil is approximated using a

function of two variables,

1

and

2

, as shown in Fig. 2.1. These two linear functions are

added to obtain the nal decambering function. The reason for using two variables is that the

decambering is determined from two pieces of information: the C

l

and the C

m

for the under

consideration. Of course, this approximation will not match the actual viscous decambering,

but the objective here is only to nd an equivalent camber reduction in order to match the

viscous C

l

and C

m

for the under consideration.

The incremental eects of

1

and

2

on the changes to C

l

and C

m

for a given can be

computed reasonably well using thin airfoil theory and a three-term Fourier series approximation

for a at plate with a ap deection.

19

For any given , C

l

and C

m

are dened as the

dierences between the viscous and the potential-ow predictions for C

l

and C

m

as follows:

6

x/c 0 1

2

x

2

Decambering function 2

x/c 0 1

1

Decambering function 1

Figure 2.1: Schematic diagram of decambering functions 1 and 2 (

1

and

2

are negative as

shown and exaggerated for clarity).

C

l

= (C

l

)

viscous

(C

l

)

potential

(2.7)

C

m

= (C

m

)

viscous

(C

m

)

potential

(2.8)

If C

l

and C

m

are known for a given , then the values of

1

and

2

in radians can be

written as:

2

=

C

m

1

4

sin 2

2

1

2

sin

2

(2.9)

1

=

C

l

[2(

2

) + 2 sin

2

]

2

2

(2.10)

where,

2

is the angular location in radians of the start point for the second decambering

function and can be expressed in terms of its x/c-location, x

2

, as follows:

2

= cos

1

(1 2x

2

); x

2

= 0.8 (2.11)

In the current work, x

2

is arbitrarily assumed to be 0.8, although typically any value from 0.5

to 0.9 works well.

Thus, if the potential-ow and viscous-ow C

l

- and C

m

- data for an airfoil are available,

the decambering function dened by

1

and

2

, at each can be determined. In the following

subsection, this decambering approach is extended to the analysis of multiple lifting surfaces

and the decambering at each wing section is evaluated in an iterative fashion.

7

2.2.2 Decambering Applied to a 3D Wing

The objective of the decambering approach was to incorporate the two-variable decambering

function in a three-dimensional analysis method such as a vortex lattice method (VLM) in an

iterative fashion. In a typical VLM, the lifting surface is divided into several spanwise and

chordwise lattices. Associated with each lattice is a horseshoe vortex. Each spanwise section j

(composed of a row of chordwise lattices) has two variables,

1j

and

2j

, for dening the local

decambered geometry at that section.

Unlike in the two-dimensional illustration, where the

1

and

2

were selected to match the

dierences between the potential-ow and the viscous-ow results, in the three-dimensional

case, changing a on one section is likely to have a signicant eect on the neighboring sections

and on the sections of the downstream lifting surfaces. To account for these eects, a 2N-

dimensional Newton iteration is used to predict the

1

and

2

at each of the N sections of all

the wings so that the residuals, C

l

and C

m

, at these sections approach zero as the iteration

progresses. A 2N 2N matrix equation, as shown in Eq. 2.12, is solved at each step of the

Newton iteration.

20

J x = F (2.12)

In this equation, F is a 2N-dimensional vector containing the residuals of the functions f

i

to be

zeroed, x is the 2N-dimensional vector containing the corrections required to the 2N variables

x

i

to bring the elements of vector F closer to zero, and J is the 2N2N Jacobian of the system

containing the gradient information.

The Jacobian is partitioned into four submatrices as shown in Eq. 2.13. Eqs. 2.142.17 show

the elements of the four submatrices to illustrate the computation of the changes to C

l

and

C

m

at section i due to small perturbations to the decambering variables

1

and

2

at section

j.

J =

_

J

l1

J

l2

J

m1

J

m2

_

(2.13)

(J

l1

)

i,j

=

C

li

1,j

=

(C

lp

)

i

(C

ls

)

i

[(

1s

)

j

+ p] (

1s

)

j

(2.14)

(J

m1

)

i,j

=

C

mi

1,j

=

(C

mp

)

i

(C

ms

)

i

[(

1s

)

j

+ p] (

1s

)

j

(2.15)

(J

l2

)

i,j

=

C

li

2,j

=

(C

lp

)

i

(C

ls

)

i

[(

2s

)

j

+ p] (

2s

)

j

(2.16)

8

C

l

C

ls

C

lp

C

lt,2

C

lt,1

+ p

s

=

t,1

p

t,2

C

l,2

C

l,1

Trajectory line

Airfoil

(a)

C

l

L1

A

L2

1

2

3

L3

B

(b)

Figure 2.2: (a) Illustration of the dierences in computation of the residuals. (b) Illustration

of the dierent ways in which trajectory lines can intersect the airfoil C

l

- curve.

(J

m2

)

i,j

=

C

mi

2,j

=

(C

mp

)

i

(C

ms

)

i

[(

2s

)

j

+ p] (

2s

)

j

(2.17)

For each step of the iteration, F and J are determined, and x is computed using Eq. 2.12.

The corrections are then applied to the values of

1

and

2

for all the sections in an eort

to bring the residuals closer to zero. The iteration procedure can be summarized using the

following steps and Fig. 2.2(a):

1. Assume starting values of the decambering variables,

1

and

2

, for each section of each

wing; for example, section j has starting values denoted by (

1s

)

j

and (

2s

)

j

.

2. Compute, using VLM, the aerodynamic characteristics of the lifting-surface conguration,

9

each section of which has been decambered by

1s

and

2s

for that section. The VLM

accounts for the decambering by appropriately rotating the unit normal vector of each

lattice. The VLM analysis provides the C

l

and C

m

of each section as output. These are

the starting values for the current step of the iteration and are denoted by (C

ls

)

j

and

(C

ms

)

j

for section j. (C

ls

)

j

is shown in Fig. 2.2(a).

3. Compute the starting values of the eective angle of attack of each section, denoted by

s

in Fig. 2.2(a), corresponding to the section C

l

; for example, the eective angle of attack

of section j is denoted by (

s

)

j

and is obtained by setting (C

l

)

sec

= (C

ls

)

j

in the following

equation:

eff

=

(C

l

)

sec

a

0

2

_

1

2

+

sin

2

_

+

0l

(2.18)

which describes the relationship between the local C

l

and local for a decambered section

operating in potential ow with a section lift-curve slope of a

0

(typically 2 per radian),

zero-lift angle of attack of

0l

for the original section without decambering, and decam-

bering variables of

1

and

2

. In Eq. 2.18, the last three terms together represent the

zero-lift angle of attack of the decambered section.

4. Perturb

1

at section j by adding a small perturbation p.

5. Compute the wing aerodynamic characteristics with the perturbed decambering using the

VLM; the resulting C

l

and C

m

for section j are denoted by (C

lp

)

j

and (C

mp

)

j

. (C

lp

)

j

is shown in Fig. 2.2(a). Hence, compute the j

th

column of J

l1

and J

m1

using Eqs. 2.14

and 2.15.

6. Residuals: Compute the eective angle of attack of each section for the perturbed decam-

bering, denoted in Fig. 2.2(a) by

p

; for example, the eective angle of attack of section j

is obtained by setting (C

lsec

) = (C

lp

)

j

in Eq. 2.18. This eective angle of attack is denoted

by (

p

)

j

for section j. The line joining the points [

s

,C

ls

] and [

p

,C

lp

] for any section

is called the trajectory line for that section, as it determines the linearized trajectory

of how a point on the C

l

- curve dened by the section

eff

and section C

l

moves with

changes to

1

on that section. This trajectory line is illustrated in Fig. 2.2(a). There-

fore, the target C

l

, (C

lt,2

)

j

, of section j for example, is the point of intersection between

the trajectory line for section j and the airfoil lift curve for the section as illustrated in

Fig. 2.2(a). The corresponding is (

t,2

)

j

, which is the of the point of intersection.

The target pitching-moment coecient, (C

mt,2

)

j

, is C

m

on the airfoil C

m

- curve corre-

sponding to (

t,2

)

j

. The residuals are now computed as (C

l,2

)

j

= (C

ls

)

j

(C

lt,2

)

j

and

(C

m,2

)

j

= (C

ms

)

j

(C

mt,1

)

j

.

7. Reset the value of

1

at section j to (

1s

)

j

.

8. Cycle through steps 58 for all values of the section index j to compute all the columns

10

of J

l1

and J

m1

.

9. Repeat steps 59 now perturbing

2

instead of

1

to compute J

l2

and J

m2

. In this process,

the computation of the residuals for in step 7 is ignored, as they have already been

computed.

10. Using the Newton equation in Eq. 2.12, compute the correction vector x. Update the

values of

1s

and

2s

by adding the correction vector x multiplied by a user-specied

damping factor D (also referred to under-relaxation factor) and go to step 2.

This iteration process is carried out until all the residuals have converged to a specied tolerance.

In the current work a damping factor of 0.1 and a tolerance of 0.001 has been used in all the

examples.

2.2.3 Multiple intersections with inclined trajectory line

Figure 2.2(b) illustrates an important consequence of using an inclined trajectory line for de-

termining the target C

l

. Three possible ways in which the trajectory line may intersect the

airfoil lift curve are illustrated in Fig. 2.2(b): (i) the trajectory line marked as L1 intersects

the airfoil lift curve at a single pre-stall point, (ii) the trajectory line marked as L2 intersects

the airfoil lift curve at multiple points, and (iii) the trajectory line marked as L3 intersects

the airfoil lift curve at a single point in the post-stall region. While there is no ambiguity in

determining the values of the target C

l

for lines L1 and L3, there clearly are three possible

choices for the target C

l

for line L2. This illustration clearly demonstrates that it is possible to

obtain multiple solutions for post-stall conditions; a fact, that was apparently rst suggested by

von Karman (see Ref. 12) and has since been discussed by several researchers.

1116, 21

However,

the approach of Ref. 4 is novel because this approach is believed to be the rst one in which

the possibility of multiple solutions for high angles of attack is brought to light right during the

iteration process. Earlier approaches were able to identify the existence of multiple solutions

only as a result of obtaining multiple nal converged solutions with dierent initial conditions

for the iteration procedure.

The existence of multiple intersections also presents a dilemma in choosing an appropriate

target C

l

from the possible multiple solutions. The following procedure was developed for

making the choice during the iteration process. At each step of the iteration, each of the

sections on all of the wings is examined to identify those with single intersections, as identied

by points A and B in Fig. 2.2(b). The target C

l

values for these sections are identied without

ambiguity. Using a logical switch called lpoststall in the code, each of these sections are

also tagged as stalledor unstalled depending on whether the for the intersection point

is greater than or less than the for C

lmax

. For example, lpoststall is tagged unstalled for

point A and stalled for point B in Fig. 2.2(b). The sections with multiple intersections are

11

then examined. Using the trajectory line L2 in Fig. 2.2(b) for example, the intersection point

1 is chosen if the logical switch lpoststall for the section is unstalled and the intersection

point 3 is chosen if the logical switch for the section is stalled.

Next, another logic is applied in which all the sections of the wings are scanned to identify

sets of contiguous sections, all of which have multiple intersections and all of which are also

tagged as unstalled. If any of these sets of contiguous sections are bound on both sides by

sections tagged as stalled, then all the sections in this set are switched to stalled. This logic

largely removed any occurrence of unstalled regions with multiple-intersections sandwiched

between two stalled regions.

The values of the logical switch for all the sections are carried over from one iteration to the

next as well as from one to the next when performing the analysis for a sequence of angles

of attack. Thus, if a section gets tagged as stalled at any point in the iteration, it remains

tagged as stalled unless the section ends up with a trajectory line like L1 in Fig. 2.2(b) when

it gets switched to unstalled.

Although the methodology uses a two-variable decambering function, for cases where the

experimental or computational viscous data for the airfoil section does not have C

m

information,

or for cases where the decambering approach is applied to an analysis method that cannot

compute the section pitching moments (e.g. LLT or a Weissingers method), the decambering

is modeled as a function of a single variable

1

;

2

is set to zero. In this case, the viscous

decambering function becomes similar to that used in the -reduction approach.

17, 18

The

inclined trajectory line for computing the residuals is still applicable when the single-variable

decambering function is used, and this feature makes the approach of Ref. 4 dierent from those

developed earlier.

2.3 Improvements to the Decambering Approach

Once the model for post stall prediction had been developed,

4

it was apparent that this was

not suitable for real-time simulation. In 2008 advancements by Gopalarathnam and Segawa

5

improved the computational eciency in the decambering approach developed by Mukherjee

and Gopalarathnam.

4

In their work, well-known superposition principles were used to calculate

spanwise lift distributions, which assumes a linear C

l

- relationship for each wing section.

Thus the computational improvement comes at a cost of making minor approximations to the

aerodynamics. With this approach, the VLM is used to pre-compute and store the additional

lift distribution arising from changes to the wing angle of attack and basic lift distributions

arising from decambering applied at each of the wing sections. These stored solutions are then

sucient for performing the post-stall wing computations without the need to use the VLM

again. In particular, with the improved approach, the Jacobian matrix is computed semi-

12

analytically, which reduces computation time. It is also shown that the Jacobian matrix, in

this approximate approach, is independent of and decambering. As a result, the Jacobian

needs to be computed only once and can be reused for any other .

2.3.1 Lift Superposition for Improved Computational Eciency

The implementation of lift superposition principles enables the rapid determination of the

Jacobian matrix for the decambering approach and avoids the need to use the VLM once

elementary basic and additional lift distributions are computed (using the VLM) and stored.

In the current work, the lift-superposition idea has been used in the decambering approach with

just a single variable,

1

, for decambering at each section;

2

has been set to zero.

The concept of superposition of lift distributions using basic and additional loading was

previously described in Section 2.1. The advantage of using the superposition concept is that the

net C

l

distribution for a particular wing C

L

can be posed in terms of the unknown decambering

variables. Using only the

1

variables for illustration and assuming N sections on the wing, the

expression for the net C

l

distribution is:

C

l

= C

L

C

la,1

+ C

lb,0

+ C

lb,1

1,1

+ C

lb,2

1,2

+ + C

lb,N

1,N

(2.19)

where, C

lb,0

is the zero-decambering basic C

l

distribution due to geometric twist and aerody-

namic twist resulting from spanwise changes to the wing airfoil. The increment in basic C

l

distribution due a unit

1

for section i is denoted by C

lb,i

.

While Eq. 2.19 is expressed in terms of the wing C

L

, for post-stall computations at a given

wing angle of attack,

w

, it is necessary to write the wing C

L

in terms of

w

, as follows:

C

L

= a(

w

b,0

(

b,1

1,1

+

b,2

1,2

+ +

b,N

1,N

)) (2.20)

where, a is the wing lift-curve slope (a = 1/

a,1

),

b,0

is the wing angle of attack corresponding

to the zero-decambering basic C

l

distribution and

b,i

is the wing angle of attack corresponding

to the increment in basic C

l

distribution due a unit

1

for section i.

With the C

l

distribution expressed in terms of

w

and the decambering variables

1,i

, it is

straightforward to compute the elements of the Jacobian matrix, as shown below:

(J

l1

)

i,j

=

C

li

1,j

= a

b,j

C

la,1

(i) + C

lb,j

(i) (2.21)

where C

lb,j

(i) is the value at section i of the basic C

l

distribution due to a unit

1

at section

j and C

la,1

(i) is the value at section i of the C

la,1

distribution. It is seen that the Jacobian

is independent of

w

, airfoil choice, wing twist and decambering. Additionally, the slope of

the trajectory line for any section i is also independent of

w

, airfoil choice, wing twist, and

13

decambering, and can be written as:

(

dC

l

d

)

traj,i

=

b,i

C

la,1

(i)/

a

+ C

lb,i

(i)

C

lb,i

(i)/a

0

b,i

C

la,1

(i)/(

a

a

0

) 1

(2.22)

where a

0

is the two-dimensional lift curve slope in inviscid ow, which is typically close to 2

per radian.

As a result, the Jacobian and the trajectory-line slopes need to be computed only once and

can be reused for other angles of attack or for studying the eects of changes to the airfoils

or wing twist. This improvement in computational eciency not only signicantly reduced

computational time but also enables performing the post-stall computations without the need

to retain the VLM in the iteration process.

14

Chapter 3

Simulation of Forces and Moments

Using Superposition

As previously discussed, aircraft simulations are generally carried out using low delity meth-

ods involving linearizations which are invalid in post-stall regimes. The current research eorts

have made use of non-linear EOM which require the knowledge of the aircraft loading at every

timestep of the ight simulation. This loading is due to geometric eects, orientation, and

angular velocities which can be readily modeled in vortex-lattice or Weissinger methods. How-

ever, in the current eort, the challenge was to incorporate these eects using pre-computed

basic and additional loadings. This is because it is undesirable for the VLM to be used for

in-the-loop calculation of the post-stall aerodynamics, due to computational time constraints

when real-time simulation is required. Instead, to nd the overall loading that an aircraft expe-

riences at a particular ight state, the pre-computed basic and additional lift distributions are

appropriately superposed. This lift distribution is then integrated to obtain the corresponding

forces and moments. Although superposition also makes use of linearizations, the lift distribu-

tion obtained can be corrected to account for non-linear eects in post stall situations using

the iterative decambering method discussed in Chapter 2. While post-stall simulations are the

ultimate goal, this chapter focuses on the formulation of modeling the eects of ight motion

in linear regimes.

Modeling the eects of ight motion without force and moment derivatives is a complicated

process and requires an accurate model with enough versatility to represent the aircraft loading

in any phase of ight. In linear regimes, this loading is unique and depends on its geometry

and specic ight parameters including velocity, orientation, and angular rates. The overall lift

distribution can be calculated by scaling stored basic and additional lift distributions due to

variations in these ight parameters. For instance, the loading that an aircraft experiences due

to the actual sideslip angle can be modeled by a basic lift distribution due to a sideslip angle

15

of 1 degree and scaled by the sideslip angle it experiences (in degrees) at any moment during

ight. For clarity, each contribution is studied separately. The approach for the representation

of these eects using superposition of basic and additional lift distributions is laid out in this

chapter and examples for each are given.

In order to verify the formulation, a simple aircraft geometry is chosen and modeled in

AVL,

22

a widely used VLM. The superposition method is then tested to nd the instantaneous

lift distributions for a given orientation and set of angular rates. Dierent examples pertaining

to each type of motion are given along with some mixed examples. To verify the formulation

pertaining to each type of motion, superposed solution is then compared with that of AVLs.

For example, if the loading due to a specied angle of attack and roll rate is desired, then the

geometry is analyzed in AVL at that angle of attack and roll rate and then compared with the

solution obtained from superposition. It is important to note that AVL is not meant to be

thought of as a truth model or one that can be used for high delity simulations, but more of

a resource for load prediction in linear regimes of ight.

This chapter begins with an introduction to AVL (Section 3.1). The aircraft geometry

used in this research is then described in Section 3.2 and the assumptions and conventions are

dened in Section 3.3. Longitudinal contributions to loading are considered next in Section 3.5;

the models for loading due to sideslip and lateral/directional motion in Section 3.6. In both

Sections 3.5 and 3.6, the formulation for each loading contribution is dened, and simulated lift

distributions from superposition are compared with those obtained from AVL.

3.1 AVL

Athena Vortex Lattice, commonly referred to as AVL,

22

is an open-source code developed by

Drela and Youngren. AVL is used for the aerodynamic and ight dynamic analysis of rigid-

body xed-wing aircraft. This versatile software and simple interface makes use of an extended

vortex lattice model to simulate the aerodynamics and ight characteristics of lifting surface

congurations in linear regimes of ight. Outputs of lift distributions along with total force

and moment coecients can be calculated for any specied ight condition. If the airplane

mass and inertia data are known along with atmospheric properties, then a full eigenmode

analysis is possible allowing the user to analyze the aircrafts ight modes such as the phugoid

and dutch roll modes, among other motions. An important observation when calculating the

ight dynamics of aircraft modes in AVL, is that the ight equilibrium results in zero vertical

velocity, v. It is obvious, however, that if sucient thrust is not applied then a trimmed aircraft

will experience a descending glide. For congruency of comparison, the superposition model is

augmented with a constant thrust placed at the centerline equal and opposite to the trimmed

X force. This results in a zeroed trim vertical velocity v.

16

It is also important to note that AVL, like many other VLM codes, uses second-order

terms in the calculation of lift and other forces and moments. The current approach based on

superposition ignores these second order terms. Consequently, for a given it is not expected

that the C

L

or C

D

predicted by AVL will agree exactly with that predicted by the superposition

method. Conversely for a given C

L

, it is not expected that the C

D

or the prescribed will

match between the two methods. However, the results are quite close. Noticeable dierences

will also be seen in cases where asymmetric loading is prevalent. Since AVL is a vortex lattice

method, each surface contains spanwise and chordwise horseshoe vortices. Each horseshoe

vortex contains a bound vortex connected to two trailing vortex legs which extend to innity.

The issue is that a portion of the trailing vortex legs modeled in AVL are bound to the lifting

surface, creating a side force that is not modeled using the current superposition approach.

Therefore, asymmetric loading will result in a deviation between the side force, rolling moment,

and yawing moment obtained from AVL and the superposition approach. The details of this

portion of the AVL model fall outside of the scope of this research and will be lumped along

with the other second order eects in the discussions presented in the rest of this thesis.

In this work, angular rates are described in non-dimensional form, p = pb/(2V

), q =

qc/(2V

), r = rb/(2V

the assumptions of quasi-steady aerodynamics. Specically, this means that for any oscillatory

motion, the rates are small enough for the ow to satisfy quasi-steady assumptions. This is

not a drawback for simulation, since this constraint holds for nearly all ight maneuvers. Any

motion resulting in angular rates outside of these limits should be interpreted with caution.

22

Table 3.1: Limits on angular rate inputs in AVL

Parameter limit

p 0.10

q 0.03

r 0.25

A important observation pertaining to the sign convention used by AVL is that in the case

of a surface given some dihedral, , a positive value of the y-component of this distribution is

in the negative y-direction. Therefore C

Y

= C

l

sin where C

l

used here represents the local

lift coecient. More on sign conventions will be discussed in Section 3.3.

Overall, AVL is a useful tool for this research since its intuitive interface allows for fast

modeling and analysis. Once a geometry is specied, the basic and additional lift distributions

17

required for superposition can be computed, stored, and scaled to simulate the loading for a

specied ight condition in a linear regime. The geometry can then be directly analyzed with

AVL at several ight conditions and the lift distributions are compared with the superposed

solutions. Once veried, superposition can be used to nd the forces and moments necessary to

drive the xed wing standard EOM, given in Chapter 4. The non-linear EOM can be evaluated

in linear regimes and compared with the linearized solution obtained from AVL in order to

test the methodology. When the method has been veried, then the next step is simulation

in post-stall using the basic and additional lift distributions in conjunction with the iterative

decambering approach and the ODE.

3.2 Denition of Model used for Verication

For simplicity, the current research uses a simple aircraft model. The goal of this particular

phase of the research was to develop the ability to use superposition to nd the loading at

any ight state while using non-linear EOM. The current geometry was inspired by a general

aviation aircraft from the literature

23

and altered to have constant chord and zero sweep. No

geometric or aerodynamic twist was applied to the lifting surfaces and the conguration was

given a constant thrust along C

x

instead of a propeller driven aircraft given in the text. All

propeller wash eects are ignored. The geometry for the standard conguration is shown in

Figure 3.1and details of the geometry are shown in Table 3.2.

Figure 3.1: Geometry plot.

18

Table 3.2: Aircraft Conguration Parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value

m 1200 kg 4.8

S 18.0 m

2

t

inc

-2.5

b 12.0 m C

Ltrim

0.29

AR 8.0

trim

3.5

c 1.5 m I

xx

1000 kgm

2

x

cg

0.38 m I

yy

4100 kgm

2

y

cg

0.00 m I

zz

4800 kgm

2

z

cg

0.00 m I

xz

0.0 kgm

2

This conguration has a wing, horizontal tail, and vertical tail, all of rectangular planform

with symmetric airfoils. The root chords of all lifting surfaces are collinear with C

x

and in line

with the CG which is placed at the wing quarter-chord. The main wing is also given a slight

dihedral, which adds wing contributions when experiencing lateral/directional motion, which

is not present when = 0. There is no twist in any of the lifting surfaces, but an incidence is

applied to the horizontal tail so that the aircraft can trim at a C

L

appropriate for the aircrafts

weight and reference ight velocity. For a tail incidence specied in Table 3.2, the aircraft trims

at about a C

Ltrim

= 0.29 corresponding to an

trim

= 3.5

lifting force is set to the weight of the aircraft and the lift coecient is set to C

Ltrim

, shown in

Eq. 3.1:

C

Ltrim

=

W

q

S

(3.1)

where q

= 1/2V

2

, Eq. 3.2

becomes:

V

trim

=

2W

C

Ltrim

S

(3.2)

3.3 Conventions and Assumptions

To obtain the forces and moments on an aircraft at a particular ight state, certain assumptions

and conventions must rst be established. The rigid body equations used to represent 6DOF

motion (given in Section 4.1) are in the body axes frame. In this frame, the x-axis is xed to

a reference line on the body. In the current model, the origin is coincident with the center of

gravity which is located at the wing-root quarter-chord. The Cx is placed along the centerline

19

and pointing out of the nose of the aircraft. Cy points out of the right wing and Cz points down.

The lift distributions obtained from AVL are in the stability axes frame and each section-wise

lift coecient is normal to the panel and V

of ight velocity in the reference state, which means that both Cx and Cz are tilted away from

those of the body axes by the angle

trim

. Parameters taken in the stability frame are denoted

with a prime (). For example, the rolling moment about the x-axis of the stability frame is C

l

.

The prime symbol is used for stability instead of the body since the equations of motion are in

the body frame and consequently the body axis parameters are more prevalent in this work.

The following assumptions are also used in the methodology of this research:

1. The models used are for rigid-body xed-wing aircraft.

2. The free-stream air is steady with no disturbances.

3. The mass of the aircraft and center of gravity remain constant throughout a given analysis.

4. The aircraft is symmetric about the C

xz

plane.

3.4 Integration of Loading

It is well known that for an airfoil, the aerodynamic center is at the quarter-chord. Therefore

the spanwise lift distributions are placed along the quarter-chord of each section. Let

dL be the

elemental lift vector corresponding to each chordwise panel. It is important to note that, while

this is called the local lift vector, it is not necessarily in the direction of lift but specically

normal to the panel and V

acting sideways such as in the case of a vertical tail where = /2. Knowing the spanwise C

l

distribution and the atmospheric properties, the elemental lift distribution is:

dL = q

cC

l

ds (3.3)

where the dierential length, ds, is the distance between start location, s, and the end location,

e, for each panel.

20

dy = (y)

e

(y)

s

(3.4)

dz = (z)

e

(z)

s

(3.5)

ds =

_

dy

2

+ dz

2

(3.6)

Therefore, the total aircraft lift is given as:

L =

N

j=1

dL

dy

ds

= q

j=1

cC

l

dy

(3.7)

and subsequently the aircraft lift coecient:

C

L

= L/(q

S)

=

1

S

N

j=1

cC

l

dy

= C

Z

(3.8)

As previously mentioned, positive values of section lift coecient along C

z

are in the negative

y direction. Therefore the side force, Y , is given as:

Y =

N

j=1

dL

dz

ds

= q

j=1

cC

l

dz

(3.9)

and the side force coecient is:

C

Y

= Y/(q

S)

=

1

S

N

j=1

cC

l

dz

(3.10)

21

For simplicity, the drag force is estimated and lumped at the CG. Note that this simplication

will cause a noticeable deviation between the values of C

X

and C

Z

obtained from AVL which

makes use of second order terms, and those obtained for superposition. Equation 3.11 represents

the estimation of drag for load simulation.

C

D

= C

D,0

+

(C

Y

)

2

+ (C

L

)

2

eAR

= C

X

(3.11)

Similarly, the moments about each axis can be obtained from the lift distributions and the

moment arms, x, y, and z, which are the corresponding distances from the center of gravity to

each panels quarter-chord location. The rolling moment in the stability frame, l

, is dened as

the sum of the moments about the CG with respect to the x-axis.

l

=

N

j=1

dL(y

dy

ds

+ z

dz

ds

)

= q

j=1

cC

l

(ydy + zdz)

(3.12)

The corresponding rolling moment coecient with respect to the stability axis is:

C

l

= l

/(q

Sb)

=

1

Sb

N

j=1

cC

l

(ydy + zdz)

(3.13)

The pitching moment in the stability frame, m, is the same as the pitching moment about the

body frame, and is dened as the sum of the moments about the y-axis and given as:

m =

N

j=1

dLx

c/4

dy

ds

= q

j=1

cC

l

x

c/4

dy

(3.14)

The corresponding pitching moment coecient is:

22

C

m

= m/(qS c)

=

1

S c

N

j=1

cC

l

x

c/4

dy

(3.15)

The yawing moment in the stability frame, N

S

, is dened as the sum of the moments about

the z-axis.

n

=

N

j=1

dLx

c/4

dz

ds

= q

j=1

cC

l

x

c/4

dz

(3.16)

The corresponding yawing moment coecient in the stability frame is:

C

n

= n

/(qS c)

=

1

Sb

N

j=1

cC

l

x

c/4

dz

(3.17)

The forces and moments in the stability frame can now be converted to the body frame.

Let

X

and

X be the force vector in the stability frame and the body frame, respectively. The

standard transformation from the body axes to the stability axes is:

= A

X (3.18)

where the prime denotes stability frame and A is the transformation matrix:

A =

_

_

cos(

ref

) 0 sin(

ref

)

0 1 0

sin(

ref

) 0 cos(

ref

)

_

_

(3.19)

If X

=

_

D Y L

_

T

and X =

_

X Y Z

_

T

, then Equation 3.18 can be modied to obtain

the body axis forces X.

X = A

1

X

(3.20)

23

The same approach can be used to convert the angular rates and moments from the stability

frame to the body frame.

3.5 Longitudinal Contributions

The longitudinal contributions to aircraft loading in ight are now discussed. These contribu-

tions include twist and incidence (Section 3.5.1), as well as pitch rate (Section 3.5.2).

3.5.1 Modeling the Eect of Section Incidence

Details of the basic loading due to spanwise variations in twist introduced in Section 2.1, are

now explained. The aircraft geometric twist distribution is dened as

tj

. Note that this

parameter is not limited to twist, since a constant twist distribution over a lifting surface would

be equivalent to applying an incidence to that surface. If the twist distribution is known, then

the basic loading due geometric twist distribution is:

C

lb,0

=

N

j=1

tj

C

lt,j

(3.21)

This contribution is already included in the net C

l

distribution given in Eq. 2.19.

3.5.2 Modeling Pitch Rate

The post-stall prediction method of Ref. 5 had to be augmented for modeling the eect of

angular velocities. The eect of pitch rate can be readily modeled in vortex-lattice or Weissinger

method formulations. In the current eort, however, the challenge was to be able to incorporate

the pitch rate eect using pre-computed basic and additional loadings. This is because the VLM

is not used for in-the-loop calculation of the post-stall aerodynamics.

While in a pitching motion, each section of the aircrafts lifting surfaces experiences an

eective change in incidence that is proportional to the distance between its control point (three-

quarter chord point) and the aircraft center of gravity. For positive pitch rate, the sections aft

of the center of gravity see an increase in lift due to an increase in eective incidence, and the

surfaces forward of the center of gravity see a decrease in lift due to a decrease in eective

incidence. If the CG is located close to the wing three-quarter chord location, then a positive

pitch rate would result in zero change in wing lift and a positive change in tail lift, resulting in

a positive change to the aircraft total lift. As the CG is moved aft of the wing, the eect of

pitch rate is to cause a negative change in wing lift and a positive change in tail lift. It can be

seen that there exists a CG location about which a positive pitch rate would cause a negative

24

change in wing lift which would exactly cancel the positive change in tail lift, resulting in zero

change to the aircraft total lift. This location is termed pitch centroid in this thesis.

It can be shown that the eect of pitch rate about an arbitrary CG location can be taken

as the sum of two contributions: (i) basic loading due to the eect of pitch rate about the pitch

centroid resulting in incidence change of sections on the lifting surfaces, but with zero change

to the total lift and (ii) an additional loading due a uniform change to the incidence angles for

all sections of the lifting surfaces due to the CG not coinciding with the pitch centroid. Because

these basic and additional loadings scale with q, they can be pre-computed for a unit q and

stored for use in the post-stall computation.

Using a sign-convention of x pointing forward, if x

pitch

denotes the location of the pitch

centroid, then it can be shown that the eective change in incidence at some section j due to

a unit q is:

j

=

2

c

(x

pitch

x

3c/4,j

) (3.22)

where the x

3c/4,j

is the x-location for the three-quarter chord point of the j

th

section.

When pitching about the pitch centroid, there is no change in aircraft C

L

and the resulting

change in the loading is a basic loading. This basic loading will be the sum of basic loadings due

to each section experiencing an eective change in incidence given by Eq. 3.22. This knowledge,

combined with Eq. 3.22, can be used to determine the location of x

pitch

as follows:

x

pitch

=

N

j=1

b,j

x

3c/4,j

N

j=1

b,j

(3.23)

The basic loading due to a unit q for pitching motion about the pitch centroid is:

C

lb,q

=

N

j=1

j

C

lb,j

(3.24)

and the additional loading due to a unit q due to the CG not coinciding with the pitch centroid

is:

C

la,q

=

C

la,1

a,1

2

c

(x

CG

x

pitch

) (3.25)

The net C

l

distribution, shown without pitch rate-eects in Eq. 2.19, can be modied to

include the added eect of pitch rate as follows:

C

l

= C

L

C

la,1

+ C

lb,0

+ q(C

la,q

+ C

lb,q

) (3.26)

This C

l

distribution can be integrated appropriately to determine the aircraft C

L

and C

m

25

3.5.3 Pitch Rate Example

In order to demonstrate the eectiveness of this approach, the conguration is tested at = 3

L

. This is because

there will be additional lift resulting from the pitching motion, which means that for a given

, C

L

will be greater. The loading contributions here are:

1. additional loading due to

2. additional loading due to q

3. basic loading due to incidence of the tail

4. basic loading due to q

The basic and additional lift distributions along with the superposed solution are given in

Figs. 3.2(a) and 3.2(b) for the wing and horizontal tail, respectively.

26

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.2

0.4

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.1

0.2

Additional (q)

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0.05

0

Basic (q)

Wing Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Superposition VS AVL

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(a) Wing

bt/2 0 bt/2

0.04

0.02

0

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

bt/2 0 bt/2

0

0.05

0.1

Additional (q)

bt/2 0 bt/2

0

0.2

0.4

Basic (q)

HT Span Location

bt/2 0 bt/2

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Superposition VS AVL

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(b) Horizontal Tail

Figure 3.2: Breakdown of Surface Loading: = 3

, q = 0.01

27

It was mentioned previously that AVL includes second-order terms in the VLM calculations.

Thus, for a prescribed , the values of C

L

obtained from AVL and from superposition will have

unavoidable discrepancies. For both the wing and tail, superposition underestimates the lift

distributions compared to AVL. The primary contribution from the wing is from the additional

loading due to . The additional and basic loadings due to pitch rate nearly negate each other

for the wing. The horizontal tail, however, sees major contributions from these eects. For this

example, the additional loading due to pitch rate produces an added C

L

=0.156, which comes

largely from the lift distribution on the horizontal tail. A comparison of the force and moment

coecients are given in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and q

Parameter AVL Superposition

C

L

0.3947 0.3897

C

X

0.0232 0.0124

C

Y

0.0000 0.0000

C

Z

-0.3940 -0.3896

C

l

0.0000 0.0000

C

m

-0.5094 -0.4953

C

n

0.0000 0.0000

As expected, C

L

obtained from superposition is lesser in magnitude than that predicted

by AVL, but only by 1.3%. The value of C

m

obtained from superposition is also smaller in

magnitude than AVLs prediction by 2.8%. The largest discrepency here is found in the C

X

(AVL predicts a value that is 87% smaller than that predicted by the superposition approach).

As mentioned previously in Section 3.4 and 3.1, the drag is estimated without the second

order terms that AVL uses resulting in deviations between the two methods. By accounting

for these second order terms, it is possible to eliminate these discrepencies. However, the

dierences in coecient prediction between the two methods is really not substantial enough

to compromise the simplicity of the approach. To put it into perspective, if the conguration

had a ight velocity of 60 m/s, a -2.8% dierence in pitching moment corresponds to about

-840 Nm. Compared to the total pitching moment at that state of just over -240 kNm, this is a

small discrepency. Even the more substantial dierence, in terms of percentage, in C

X

of 87%

corresponds to a mere 430 N at this ight velocity. Due to consitant discrepencies in C

X

that

result in small disagreements in actual aircraft loading, the eects from the dierence in drag

models between the two methods will not be discussed in the remainder of this thesis.

28

3.6 Lateral/Directional Contributions

The contributions to aircraft loading due to lateral-directional motions and perturbations are

now discussed. These contributions include sideslip (Section 3.6.1), roll rate (Section 3.6.3),

yaw rate (Section 3.6.5). A few mixed examples are also included that tend to occur during

Dutch roll motion (Section 3.6.7).

3.6.1 Modeling Sideslip

When an aircraft is ying in sideslip, each section of the aircrafts lifting surfaces experiences an

eective change in incidence (

,j

) that is proportional to the sine of that sections dihedral

angle,

j

. Note that a wing with no dihedral corresponds to =0 rad and a standard vertical

tail corresponds to a = /2 rad. When a lifting surface has dihedral (0 /2), the

sections right of center have positive -values and the surfaces left of center have negative -

values. That means that for surfaces that are symmetric about the aircraft centerline in positive

sideslip, the sections left of center will have

,j

equal and opposite of those right of center.

The eect that sideslip has on an aircraft can be modeled by the basic loading due to the

aircraft being angularly displaced by a rotation, , about the z-axis. This results in an eective

change in incidence of the sections on the lifting surface, but with zero change in the total lift.

Using the sign convention of Reference 1, that takes positive sideslip to be a ight condition

in which v is positive, it can be shown that the eective incidence at a section due to its local

dihedral angle and a unit is:

,j

= sin(

j

) (3.27)

and can be scaled by the sideslip angle that the conguration experiences in ight. Note that

this does not aect sections without dihedral and that for sections with

j

= /2 rad, the

eective incidence is simply .

Therefore, the basic loading due to a unit sideslip, , is:

C

lb,

=

N

j=1

,j

C

lb,j

(3.28)

The net C

l

distribution, shown without sideslip rate-eects in Eq. 3.26, can be modied to

include the added eect of sideslip as follows:

C

l

= C

L

C

la,1

+ C

lb,0

+ q(C

la,q

+ C

lb,q

) + C

lb,

(3.29)

This C

l

distribution can be integrated appropriately to determine the aircraft force coecients

29

C

L

and C

Y

, as well as the moment coecients C

l

, C

m

, and C

n

.

3.6.2 Sideslip Example

In order to demonstrate the eectiveness of this approach, the conguration is tested at C

L

=0.5

and = 5

. Here, C

L

can be specied which allows the lift distribution results to compare

better than those from the pitch rate example. Instead, the discrepancy for this example is

with . The loading contributions here are:

1. additional loading due to

2. basic loading due to incidence of the tail

3. basic loading due to

The basic and additional lift distributions along with the superposed solution are given in

Figs. 3.3(a), 3.3(b), and 3.3(c) for the wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail, respectively.

30

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

0.04

0.02

0

0.02

0.04

Basic (Sideslip)

Wing Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

Superposition VS AVL

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(a) Wing

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Basic (Sideslip)

HT Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

Superposition VS AVL

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

Direct Analysis

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure 3.3: Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, = 5

31

The comparison of the two solutions for the wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail are in

close agreement. The dierences in the solution from AVL and from superposition for the

wing and vertical tail are almost indistinguishable. The discrepancy between the solutions for

the horizontal tail is more noticeable, but only experiences a maximum dierence in local lift

coecient of about 0.05 per unit span. While most of the loading for the wing and horizontal tail

still comes from and the tail incidence, sideslip causes signicant eects in these distributions.

Since the wing has dihedral, for a positive sideslip the right side sees an increase in lift due

to an increase in eective incidence and the left side sees a decrease in lift due to an decrease

in eective incidence. However, the horizontal tail has no dihedral, so its contribution to the

basic loading due to sideslip comes from purely from downwash eects from the vertical tail

and wing loading. The vertical tail sees an eective incidence equal to the sideslip. A positive

sideslip produces a positive lift distribution on the vertical tail, in the negative y direction. A

comparison of the force and moment coecients are given above in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and

Parameter AVL Superposition

C

L

0.5000 0.5000

C

X

0.0432 0.0378

C

Y

-0.0394 -0.0395

C

Z

-0.4982 -0.4987

C

l

-0.0129 -0.0115

C

m

-0.1522 -0.1427

C

n

0.0219 0.0220

The comparison in the table above shows that the two methods agree quite well. There

are noticeable discrepancies in rolling and pitching moment coecient of about -12% and -7%,

respectively. The dierence in pitching moment is consistent with that shown in the pitch rate

example. The dierence in rolling moment coecient is due to the second order eects that

AVL takes into account, mentioned in Section 3.1.

3.6.3 Modeling Roll Rate

While in a rolling motion, each section of the aircrafts lifting surfaces experiences an eective

change in incidence that is proportional to its distance to the centerline, C

x

. For positive roll

rate, the sections right of the centerline experience a positive change in lift due to an increase

in eective incidence, and the surfaces left of the centerline experience a decrease in lift due to

32

a decrease in eective incidence. Also, the sections below the centerline placed at a positive

distance from the CG in the C

z

direction, experience an increase in lift due to an increase in

angle of attack and those above the centerline experience a decrease in lift due to a decrease in

eective incidence. It can be shown that the eect of roll rate about the centerline of the aircraft

can be modeled with the basic loading due to this variation in spanwise eective incidence. The

change in eective incidence a panel sees due to a unit p can be modeled by:

p,j

=

2

b

(y

dy

ds

+ z

dy

ds

) (3.30)

Therefore the basic loading due to roll rate, p, is:

C

lb,p

=

N

j=1

p,j

C

lb,j

(3.31)

The net C

l

distribution, shown without roll rate eects in Eq. 3.26, can be modied to

include the added eect of roll rate as follows:

C

l

= C

L

C

la,1

+ C

lb,0

+ q(C

la,q

+ C

lb,q

) + C

lb,

+ pC

lb,p

(3.32)

This C

l

distribution can be integrated appropriately to determine the aircraft force coecients

C

L

and C

Y

, as well as the moment coecients C

l

, C

m

, and C

n

.

3.6.4 Roll Rate Example

In order to demonstrate the eectiveness of this approach, the conguration is tested at C

L

=

0.5 and p= 0.05. Since this example has a nonzero C

L

, and the applied p is in the stability

frame, there will be a small yaw rate produced when a transformation is performed from the

stability coordinate frame to the body. The loading contributions here are:

1. additional loading due to

2. additional rolling moment, l due to r

3. basic loading due to incidence of the tail

4. basic loading due to p

5. basic loading due to r

The basic and additional lift distributions along with the superposed solution are given in

Figs. 3.4(a), 3.4(b), and 3.4(c) for the wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail, respectively.

33

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.5

1

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.2

0

0.2

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

4

Basic (r)

Wing Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Superposition VS AVL

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(a) Wing

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.1

0.2

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

2

0

2

x 10

4

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Basic (r)

HT Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Superposition VS AVL

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 b/2 b

0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

Basic (p)

0 b/2 b

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

Basic (r)

VT Span Location

0 b/2 b

0.035

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0.005

Superposition VS AVL

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure 3.4: Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, p

= 0.05

34

Figs. 3.4(a), 3.4(b), and 3.4(c) support the validity of this approach for modeling the

loading due to roll rate. The curves for the lift distributions from superposition and AVL are in

close agreement. The superposition values of local lift coecient for the wing are consistently

great at each spanwise lattice on the left side and greater on the right side, with maximum

discrepancies in local lift coecient of about 0.01 per unit span. The superposition solution for

the horizontal and vertical tail has greater values in magnitude at each spanwise lattice with

maximum discrepancies in local lift coecient of about 0.04 and 0.025 for the horizontal tail

and vertical tail, respectively.

The main contributions for the wing and horizontal tail are from , tail incidence, and the

basic loading due to p. The linear change in eective incidence for the surfaces due to a positive

roll rate causes an increase in lift on the right side of these surfaces and a decrease in lift on the

left side of these surfaces. This eect increases with increase in distance from the cg in the y-z

plane. Therefore the wing (Fig. 3.4(a)), with a greater span, is aected more from this motion.

When converting to the body axis, there is a small amount of yaw rate which has little eect

on the wing and horizontal tail. Interestingly, the r resulting from the transformation is a mere

0.005, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the roll rate, is equally as inuential on the

loading for the vertical tail loading. The roll rate contribution to the loading on the horizontal

tail has an interesting shape. While the linear decrease in incidence provides an increase in

lift distribution, or negative loading in the y-direction, the induced velocities from the other

surfaces cause the section lift coecients near the root chord to go negative. The positive yaw

rate left over from transformation to the body frame causes a negative loading on the vertical

tail due to an increase in tail incidence. A comparison of the force and moment coecients are

given above in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and p

C

L

0.5000 0.5000

C

X

0.0426 0.0379

C

Y

1.0e-5 -0.0047

C

Z

-0.4983 -0.4989

C

l

-0.0267 -0.0267

C

m

-0.1491 -0.1429

C

n

-0.0062 -0.0043

35

The data above compares very well aside from discrepancies in C

Y

and C

n

. While two

methods prediction for C

Y

disagree in magnitude and direction, both predict the side force to

be close to zero. The larger discrepancy lies in the prediction of yawing moment coecient. If

the conguration has a ight velocity of 60 m/s at standard sea level, then the total yawing

moment predicted by AVL for this case is close to 3000 Nm. Table 3.5 shows that AVL predicts

C

n

to be 44% less than the superposition approach, dropping the yawing moment to 2100 Nm.

Obviously, this would cause a noticeable dierence in the ight dynamics. This will be more

evident in Chapter 4.

3.6.5 Modeling Yaw Rate

While in a yawing motion, an aircraft experiences two distinct eects: (i) a change in incidence

of each section of every lifting surface and (ii) a change in the magnitude of the local velocity

at each section. The second eect is present for roll rate and pitch rate as well, but is negligible

for most aircraft.

To model the rst eect, each section of the aircrafts lifting surfaces experiences an eective

change in incidence that is proportional to the distance between its control point and the aircraft

CG, as well as the sine of its dihedral angle. For positive yaw rate, the sections forward and

right of the center of gravity having positive dihedral see an increase in lift due to an increase

in eective incidence. The sections aft of the center of gravity having positive dihedral see a

decrease in lift due to a decrease in eective incidence. It can be shown that this eect of

yaw rate about C

z

can be modeled as the sum of the basic loading due each sections eective

incidences. This change in eective incidence due to a unit r can be modeled by:

r,j

=

2

b

ref

(x

CG

x

3c/4,j

) sin

j

(3.33)

Therefore the basic loading due to a unit yaw rate, r, is:

C

lb,r

=

N

j=1

r,j

C

lb,j

(3.34)

The net C

l

distribution, shown without yaw rate rate-eects in Eq. 3.32, can be modied

to include the added eect of yaw rate as follows:

C

l

= C

L

C

la,1

+ C

lb,0

+ q(C

la,q

+ C

lb,q

) + C

lb,

+ pC

lb,p

+ rC

lb,r

(3.35)

The second eect is modeled by an increase in local velocity magnitude, and is primarily

dependent on the y-distance of the control point from the CG. For a given value of r, the local

velocity at a section is:

36

V (y) = V

r(y y

CG

) (3.36)

It turns out that modeling the eect of this spanwise change in dynamic pressure using

basic and additional loadings is quite daunting. Currently, this eect has been modeled in a

somewhat ad-hoc way of scaling the local lift coecient to take into account the local increase

in dynamic pressure. This relationship is given in Eq 3.37.

C

l

(y) = C

l

(y)(1

2 r

y

b

ref

) (3.37)

Once the lift distribution has been scaled, this distribution can be integrated appropriately to

determine the aircraft force coecients C

L

and C

Y

, as well as the moment coecients C

l

, C

m

,

and C

n

.

This method works quite well, as shown in the examples below. However, the method was

found using a combination of trial and error and experience working with modeling angular

motion on lift distributions. A thorough derivation or explanation as to why it works is not

given, but is to be addressed in future research eorts. (NOTE: Due to a lack of theoretical

foundation for modeling the change in magnitude of the local velocity at each section due to

yaw-rate, Appendix-A was added to include more examples to explore the limitations of this

method. It is also expected that the second order eects that AVL includes will cause more

noticeable discrepancies in integrated force and moment coecients)

3.6.6 Yaw Rate Example

In order to demonstrate the eectiveness of this approach, the conguration is tested at C

L

=0.5

and r=0.01. Since this example has a nonzero C

L

, and r is in the stability frame, there will be

a small roll rate produced when performing transformation from the stability coordinate frame

to the body. The loading contributions here are:

1. additional loading due to

2. additional rolling moment, l due to r

3. basic loading due to incidence of the tail

4. basic loading due to p

5. basic loading due to r

The basic and additional lift distributions along with the superposed solution are given in

Figs. 3.5(a), 3.5(b), and 3.5(c) for the wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail, respectively.

37

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.5

1

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Basic (r)

Wing Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

Superposition VS AVL

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(a) Wing

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.1

0.2

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0

0.1

Basic (r)

HT Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

Superposition VS AVL

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 b/2 b

6

4

2

0

2

x 10

3

Basic (p)

0 b/2 b

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Basic (r)

VT Span Location

0 b/2 b

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

Superposition VS AVL

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure 3.5: Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, r

= 0.10

38

From observation of the gure above, the superposed lift distribution matches the solution

obtained from AVL very well For the wing in Figure 3.5(a) the loading is due to , tail incidence,

rolling moment due to yaw rate and the roll rate produced from conversion to the body axis.

However, the basic loading due to yaw rate has little eect on the wing, which makes sense

seeing that this eect is scaled by the sine of the dihedral angle which is quite small. The

horizontal tail sees the same contributions, except the dominant loadings for the wing are the

negligible loadings for the horizontal tail. The basic loading due to yaw rate shows dominance

over the roll rate and rolling moment eects. For the vertical tail, a majority of the loading

comes from yaw rate. The eect of roll rate is dicult to distinguish for the vertical tail. A

comparison of the force and moment coecients are given above in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: and r

C

L

0.5000 0.5010

C

X

0.0451 0.0377

C

Y

0.0608 0.0614

C

Z

-0.4980 -0.4998

C

l

0.0181 0.0215

C

m

-0.1514 -0.1414

C

n

-0.0349 -0.0335

The table above shows that the formulation for modeling yaw rate provides an accurate

representation of the forces and moments attributed to this type of motion when compared to

the output of AVL. Along with C

X

, there are noticeable discrepancies between the two methods

which are due to second order eects. The calculation of rolling moment coecient sees the

largest dierence at 16%. While the pitching moment and yawing moment comparisons show a

much smaller discrepancies (7% and 4%, respectively). From this and other examples given in

Appendix A, it is clear that the lift distributions found using superposition match those from

AVL very well. However, while integrating the loading, the second order eects which AVL

takes into acount will cause apparent dierences when modeling ight dynamics.

3.6.7 Mixed Example

Lateral and directional aircraft motion will generally involve roll rate, yaw rate and sideslip

all at once since these motions are coupled. This is why an investigation into mixed examples

is noteworthy. For the rst example, the aircraft is given an to achieve a C

L

=0.5, = 5

39

and instantaneous value of p

oscillation when the value of has peaked and r=0.

The loading contributions here are:

1. additional loading due to

2. additional rolling moment, l due to r

3. basic loading due to incidence of the tail

4. basic loading due to sideslip

5. basic loading due to p

6. basic loading due to r

The basic and additional lift distributions along with the superposed solution are given in

Figs. 3.6(a), 3.6(b), and 3.6(c) for the wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail, respectively.

40

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.5

1

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (Sideslip)

b/2 0 b/2

0.2

0

0.2

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

4

Basic (r)

Wing Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Superposition VS AVL

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(a) Wing

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.1

0.2

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

4

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0

0.1

Basic (Sideslip)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

5

0

5

x 10

3

Basic (r)

HT Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

Superposition VS AVL

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 b/2 b

0

0.2

0.4

Basic (Sideslip)

0 b/2 b

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (p)

0 b/2 b

0.01

0.02

0.03

Basic (r)

VT Span Location

0 b/2 b

0.16

0.2

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.38

Superposition VS AVL

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure 3.6: Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, = 5

, p

= 0.05

41

The gures above show that when multiple ight parameters are varying with time, in

this case , and roll-rate, the formulation still holds very well. This is a must for lateral

directional motion, since sideslip, roll rate and yaw rate all occur simultaneously. The wing

sees strong eects from rolling motion and opposing secondary eects from the dihedral eect

due to sideslip. The horizontal tails lift distribution is shaped by sideslip, roll rate, and yaw

rate eects, all causing a decrease in lift on the right side and an increase in lift on the left side.

The vertical tail sees contributions which both increase the side force, and a small basic loading

which shifts the loading towards the centerline of the aircraft. A comparison of the force and

moment coecients are given above in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: , , and p

C

L

0.5000 0.5000

C

X

0.0445 0.0442

C

Y

-0.0394 -0.0351

C

Z

-0.4981 -0.4981

C

l

0.0136 0.0142

C

m

-0.1516 -0.1425

C

n

0.0281 0.0253

The force and moment comparison above further illustrates the validity of the current

approach.

For the second example, the aircraft is given an to achieve a C

L

=0.5, and instantaneous

values of p

=-0.05 and r

1. additional loading due to

2. additional rolling moment, l due to r

3. basic loading due to incidence of the tail

4. basic loading due to p

5. basic loading due to r

The basic and additional lift distributions along with the superposed solution are given in

Figs. 3.7(a), 3.7(b), and 3.7(c) for the wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail, respectively.

42

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.5

1

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.2

0

0.2

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

2

0

2

x 10

3

Basic (r)

Wing Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Superposition VS AVL

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(a) Wing

b/2 0 b/2

0

0.1

0.2

Additional () + Basic (HT Inc)

b/2 0 b/2

2

0

2

x 10

3

Additional (l due to r)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (p)

b/2 0 b/2

0.05

0

0.05

Basic (r)

HT Span Location

b/2 0 b/2

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Superposition VS AVL

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 b/2 b

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.01

Basic (p)

0 b/2 b

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

Basic (r)

VT Span Location

0 b/2 b

0.24

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

Superposition VS AVL

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition

AVL Solution

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure 3.7: Breakdown of Surface Loading: C

L

= 0.5, p

= 0.05, r

= 0.05

43

The current method provides an excellent representation of the lift distributions for this

example when compared to the solution obtained from AVL, as shown in Figs. 3.7(a)- 3.7(c).

The rolling motion has a signicant eect on the wing and horizontal tail, but little eect on

the vertical tail (only causing a slight shift in the trough-like region of the distribution). For the

wing, its main contribution comes from the basic loading due to roll rate and the additional

rolling moment due to yaw rate. Since this is a negative roll rate, the left side of the wing is

heavily loaded while the right side has a large reduction in lift. This causes a restoring positive

rolling moment. For the horizontal tail, the increased loading on the right side is due to a

positive yaw rate due to an increase in the incidence along its span. Moving outboard along the

span, the right wing sees a sharp decrease due to the incidence change as a result of roll rate

being most prevalent at the tips. There is an opposite eect on the left. A noticeable reduction

in lift close to the root from yaw rate eects, and an increase in lift towards the tips due to

rolling motion are observed. A comparison of the force and moment coecients are given above

in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Force and Moment Coecient Comparison: , p

, and r

C

L

0.5000 0.5026

C

X

0.0434 0.0445

C

Y

0.0305 0.0351

C

Z

-0.4982 -0.5008

C

l

0.0357 0.0346

C

m

-0.1488 -0.1423

C

n

-0.0113 -0.0143

The force and moment coecients above compare well but have show noticeable disagree-

ments when predicting C

Y

and C

n

. In this example, AVL predicts more conservative values of

side force and yawing moment coecients (-13% and 21% less, respectively, than that predicted

by superpostion). As with other examples shown in this chapter containing perturbations in

and those given intial values of p and r, this case further hints that the ight dynamics will

have larger disagreements when it comes to lateral-directional motion.

However, while slight disagreements are expected, the comparisons given in this section

and the preceding sections provide optimism for the current formulations ability to predict the

loading on an aircraft due to most types of motions. However, contributions, which help model

short period oscillations, are not considered. Other eects such as sweep, taper, propulsive

44

devices, eects from the body and eects control surface deections are not considered in this

simple model.

3.7 Stability Derivatives

In the previous section, quasi-static examples were presented to illustrate the eects of in-

stantaneous loading at specied orientations and angular rates before conducting any dynamic

simulation. While the formulation for modeling these eects shows promise, it is important to

consider changes in these eects due to changes in the orientation and angular rates. Thus, a

stability derivative comparison is necessary. The lifting surface conguration was modeled in

AVL and the stability derivatives were found using small disturbance theory. For -derivatives,

is set to zero and then perturbed by an =0.01 rad. For the remaining derivatives, C

L

is

set to 0.5 and the ight parameter in question (, p, q or r) are disturbed by a value of 0.01

(unit-less for angular rates and radians for ). The following comparisons show how changing

specic parameters eects the overall loading on the aircraft. Since we know that the current

formulation is not perfect, we can use this study for further evaluation to gain insight into

which components show noticeable discrepancies.

First, changes in the loading due to change in angle of attack are considered, shown in

Table 3.9 along with their corresponding curves shown in Figs. 3.8(a)-3.8(c). Note that the

stability derivative C

Di

, is not included in Table 3.9 since we know that it is non-linear for

both models. The trends for both models predictions of C

L

and C

m

due to variations in

agree quite well. While the discrepancies are dicult to distinguish from the curves, there

is a 0.4% dierence in C

L

and a 3.0% dierence in C

m

. As expected, there is a much

more noticeable disagreement when comparing the two methods predictions for C

Di

due to

variations in . Although the two methods are in close agreement for low , after the angle

of attack is increased past 5

for a prescribed angle of attack. This deviation between the two methods results continues to

increase with increasing .

Table 3.9: Stability Derivative Comparison:

Derivative AVL Superposition

C

L

5.374 5.354

C

m

-3.753 -3.632

45

5 0 5 10 15 20

1

0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

(deg)

C

L

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(a) C

L

vs.

5 0 5 10 15 20

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

(deg)

C

Di

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(b) C

Di

vs.

5 0 5 10 15 20

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

(deg)

C

m

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(c) C

m

vs.

Figure 3.8: Lift and Pitching Moment with change in Angle of Attack

46

Next, changes in loading due to variations in sideslip are given for a C

L

= 0.5 are given. The

derivatives are shown in in Table 3.10, and the relationships of side force, rolling moment,

and yawing moment due to variations in sideslip are plotted in Figures 3.9(a)-3.9(c). The

comparisons of the derivatives C

Y

and C

n

of the C

l

between C

l

and is helpful because it shows how nding derivatives at certain lift coecients

can oer dierent results. Observe in Figure 3.9(b) that the AVL solution is exactly the same

as that obtained from superposition at =20

agree at these data points, there are obvious discrepencies between zero and =20

. So

while at a glance it appears the curve from AVL is linear, we now know that is not the case.

Unintuitively, this curves non-linearity turns out to be a plus since while at most lift coecients

the two methods prediction of C

l

the same rolling moment coecient.

Table 3.10: Stability Derivative Comparison:

Derivative AVL Superposition

C

Y

-0.4535 -0.4529

C

l

-0.1221 -0.1055

C

n

0.2665 0.2642

47

20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

(deg)

C

Y

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(a) C

Y

vs.

20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

(deg)

C

l

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(b) C

l

vs.

20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

(deg)

C

n

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(c) C

n

vs.

Figure 3.9: Side force, Rolling Moment, and Yawing Moment Curves with change in Sideslip

48

Now a stability derivative comparison pertaining to variations in roll rate are examined in

Table 3.11.

Table 3.11: Stability Derivative Comparison: p

C

Y p

-0.0002 -0.0952

C

l

p

-0.5427 -0.5440

C

n

p

-0.0686 -0.0306

The results reveal unsatisfactory comparisons of C

Y p

and C

n

p

, but show a good agreement for

C

l

p

. The relationships between side force, rolling moment, and yawing moment with respect

to variations in rolling moment, shown in Figures 3.10(a)-3.10(c), conrm these results.

49

50 0 50

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

p (deg/s)

C

Y

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(a) C

Y

vs. p

50 0 50

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

p (deg/s)

C

l

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(b) C

l

vs. p

50 0 50

4

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

x 10

3

p (deg/s)

C

n

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(c) C

n

vs. p

Figure 3.10: Side force, Rolling Moment, and Yawing Moment Curves with change in Roll Rate

50

The stability derivative comparison pertaining to variations in pitch rate are examined in

Table 3.12 and the relationships of lift and pitching moment with variations in pitch rate are

shown in Figs. 3.11(a)-3.11(b). From the comparisons shown, it is evident that the superposition

prediction for changes in lift due to pitch rate are in agreement with AVL.

Table 3.12: Stability Derivative Comparison: q

Derivative AVL Superposition

C

Lq

15.84 15.71

C

mq

-54.27 -53.40

51

60 40 20 0 20 40 60

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

q (deg/s)

C

L

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(a) C

L

vs. q

60 40 20 0 20 40 60

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

q (deg/s)

C

m

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(b) C

m

vs. q

Figure 3.11: Lift and Pitching Moment Curves with change in Pitch Rate

52

The stability derivative comparison pertaining to variations in yaw rate are examined in

Table 3.13 and the relationships between side force, rolling moment, and yawing moment due

to yaw rate are shown in Figs. 3.12(a)-3.12(c). It turns out that aside from the rolling moment

derivative and curve comparisons, the other yaw rate relationships are modeled quite well.

Table 3.13: Stability Derivative Comparison: r

C

Y r

0.6083 0.6140

C

l

r

0.1447 0.1789

C

n

r

-0.3651 -0.3557

53

50 0 50

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

r (deg/s)

C

Y

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(a) C

Y

vs. r

50 0 50

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

r (deg/s)

C

l

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(b) C

l

vs. r

50 0 50

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

r (deg/s)

C

n

Superposition VS AVL

Superposition

AVL

(c) C

n

vs. r

Figure 3.12: Side force, Rolling Moment, and Yawing Moment Curves with change in Roll Rate

54

The relationships in given in this chapter between the aerodynamic forces and moments

due to angular perturbations and rates oer further insight into the capabilities of the current

superposition approach in linear regimes. While the longitudinal derivatives may not agree per-

fectly, the relationships obtained from superposition closely match those from AVL. Therefore,

from these results it is expected that purely longitudinal ight dynamics will also match well

between the two methods. However, the models oer noticeable dierences in lateral-directional

relationships and it is expected that ight dynamics due to lateral-directional perturbations and

initial conditions will oer contrasting results.

Next, the superposition method is used in conjunction with the non-linear xed-wing EOM

to perform ight dynamic simulation of the model in a linear regime. The results are compared

with those obtained from AVL eigenmode analysis. Then a few brief examples are shown in

post-stall using the current method with the post-stall prediction code discussed in Chapter 2.

55

Chapter 4

Results for Dynamics in Pre-Stall

and Post-Stall

The previous chapter outlined the formulation for modeling the forces and moments encoun-

tered when experiencing various types of motion. This section applies those methods to model

six-DOF ight using full non-linear xed-wing EOM. The non-linear model is described in Sec-

tion 4.1. Integration of the superposed load distributions at each time step produces the total

forces, X Y and Z, and the moments L, M, and N can be used as inputs for the ODE model.

Simulations from the linearized model used in AVL are then compared with those obtained

from superposition and the non-linear model.

4.1 Fixed Wing Equations of Motion

The standard non-linear equations of 6DOF motion for a rigid-body aircraft are given in Eq. 4.1.

56

x = ucos cos

+v(sin sin cos cos sin )

+w(cos sin cos + sin sin )

y = ucos sin

+v(sin sin sin + cos cos )

+w(cos sin sin sin cos )

z = usin + v sin cos + wcos cos

u = X/mg sin qw + rv

v = Y/m + g cos sin ru + pw

w = Z/m + g cos cos pv + qu

= q cos r sin

p = (L qr(I

zz

I

yy

))/I

xx

q = (M rp(I

xx

I

zz

))/I

yy

r = (N pq(I

yy

I

xx

))/I

zz

(4.1)

The motion described by these equations has twelve states in the state vector:

(x y z u v w p q r)

T

. At each time step in the solution of the ODE, u, v, w, p, q,

and r are used to compute the instantaneous values of aircraft as well as the angular rates:

p, q, and r. These are used as inputs to the superposition, and eventually the post-stall code

to determine the aircraft lift distribution. This lift distribution is then used to compute the

dimensional forces and moments: X, Y , Z, L, M, and N. The ow chart for each step of the

ODE solution, corresponding to the description above, is shown in Fig 4.1.

Now the ight dynamics are compared between AVL and the superposition method.

4.2 Linear Modeling of Aircraft Modes

In this section, ight dynamic results obtained from AVL and the superposition approach, for

the conguration described in Section 3.2, are compared. Since the eigenmode feature was

implemented here, specic ight modes can be selected. Using the initial conditions obtained

57

Figure 4.1: Flow chart for pre-stall aerodynamic prediction at each time step

from AVL for specic aircraft modes, the conguration was also tested using the superposition

approach in conjunction with the ODE solver. The two methods results are compared in this

section.

4.2.1 Phugoid

Using the eigenmode analysis in AVL, the phugoid mode was selected and the ight dynamics

were simulated and stored. The model from the current eort using the non-linear EOM in

conjunction with superposition was then given the initial values specied in Table 4.1. These

parameters are what AVL uses at time t=0 for the phugoid mode.

Table 4.1: Initial Conditions for Phugoid Motion

V

deg deg deg m/s deg deg

0.000 -0.4507 0.000 60.24 3.572 0.000

In Figs. 4.2(a) - 4.2(c), the ight dynamic parameters are compared over 200 seconds.

58

0 50 100 150 200 250

60

61

62

u

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.1

0

0.1

v

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

3.9

3.85

3.8

3.75

w

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(a) u, v, and w

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.1

0

0.1

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

1

0

1

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.1

0

0.1

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(b) , , and

0 50 100 150 200 250

60

61

62

V

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.1

0

0.1

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(c) V

, , and

Figure 4.2: Comparison between the superposition approach and AVL for the phugoid mode

59

Since only longitudinal inputs are given, the result is pure longitudinal motion. The velocity

u comparison between the two methods are in close agreement. Only a slight dierence in

amplitude is shown in the comparison. The lateral velocity v remains zero and curves for w are

oset due to small dierences in the trim angle of attack, but remain nearly identical in time

period and damping.

The Euler angles comparison in Fig. 4.2(b) shows that, as expected, the only non-zero Euler

angle throughout the motion is pitch angle, . Note that the accuracy of pitch is similar to

that of the forward velocity u. The last comparison plot for the phugoid motion is shown in

Fig. 4.2(c). Here the free stream velocity V

u and the pitch angle , while the trends in oset of angle of attack corresponds to the w

comparison.

Note that the short period is not compared here since this motion depends highly on

contributions, which are not modeled in the current approach. However, while is an important

term when modeling the short period motion, the q derivatives also oer contributions on

vertical velocity w and consequently will result in aects in . Observing the curve with

respect to time, there is a sudden spike in angle of attack for the superposition model which

brings it closer to the its trim value.

4.2.2 Dutch Roll

When an aircraft experiences lateral motion, the damped, and oscillatory, out of phase rela-

tionship between roll rate and yaw rate resulting from lateral displacement is known as dutch

roll. The inputs for the geometrys Dutch roll mode were obtained from the initial conditions

specied in AVL, and can be seen in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Initial conditions for dutch roll motion

V

deg deg deg m/s deg deg

0.8871 0.000 13.85 62.74 3.542 -13.31

In Figures 4.3(a) - 4.3(c), the ight dynamic parameters are compared over 2 seconds.

60

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

60

61

62

63

u

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

10

0

10

20

v

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

4.5

4

3.5

w

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(a) u, v, and w

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

10

5

0

5

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0

0.5

1

1.5

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

20

10

0

10

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(b) , , and

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

61

62

63

V

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

10

0

10

20

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(c) V

, , and

Figure 4.3: Comparison between the superposition approach and AVL for the Dutch Roll mode

61

An expected, a problem found when modeling pure lateral/direction inputs with the non-

linear EOM was that omitting the phugoid motion was dicult. This is expected for several

reasons. For one, the inputs used for the dutch roll mode include what avl prescribes as

the trim angle of attack, which we know does not coincide with the trim angle of attack

prescribed by the superposition approach. Thus a short period and phugoid will result. More

importantly, longitudinal and lateral-directional motion are not separated. In fact every lateral-

directional term in the non-linear equations described in Equ 4.1 include longitudinal terms.

Observe Fig 4.3(a). Releasing the geometry from what AVL prescribes as the congurations

longitudinally trimmed condition with lateral inputs results in longitudinal motion. During the

rst second, there is a noticeable short period motion in the curves describing w, , and V

.

Now observe the lateral-directional parameters, v, , , and for the desired Dutch roll motion.

Fig. 4.3(a) gives a comparison of the body axis velocities. The lateral velocity, v compares well

with that predicted by AVL. While slightly out of phase, the time periods for the two agree,

and both motions seem to be completely damped out after 1.5 seconds. Similar in comparison

to the trends in v, are the plots of and in Fig. 4.3(b). While slightly out of phase, their time

periods agree. The Euler angle, , also appears to have a bit of steady state error. The Euler

angle in this plot, and in Fig. 4.3(c) show similar trends and both return to equilibrium

close to zero.

The disagreements in Dutch Roll output dynamics were expected after the observations

from the force and moment derivative comparisons in Section 3.7 showed clear discrepancies.

However, we can attribute this to the second order terms that AVL takes into account which

we know has inuential aects.

4.2.3 Spiral Mode

A slowly convergent or divergent time variation in and is known as the spiral mode. The

inputs, taken from AVL, are given in Table 4.3. While the motion is extremely slow, taking

over 200 seconds to develop, all lateral and directional perturbations approach zero. This can

be seen in Figs. 4.4(a), 4.4(b), and 4.4(c).

Table 4.3: Initial conditions for spiral mode motion

V

deg deg deg m/s deg deg

-0.0191 0.000 0.1308 61.09 3.539 -0.0004

62

0 50 100 150 200 250

60.85

60.9

60.95

61

u

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

1

0.5

0

x 10

3

v

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

3.85

3.8

3.75

3.7

w

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(a) u, v, and w

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.02

0.01

0

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.1

0

0.1

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.2

0

0.2

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(b) , , and

0 50 100 150 200 250

61

61.05

61.1

61.15

V

(

m

/

s

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

0 50 100 150 200 250

1

0.5

0

x 10

3

(

d

e

g

)

ODE with Superposition

AVL

(c) V

, , and

Figure 4.4: Comparison between the superposition approach and AVL for the Spiral mode

63

4.3 Post-Stall Examples

The superposition approach was implemented in a second computer program for simulating the

ight dynamics at post-stall conditions. For this program, the basic and additional loadings were

pre-computed using the Wings Weissinger-method code. The post-stall iteration algorithm,

5

written in Fortran, was integrated as a MEX function to be called by the ODE45 MATLAB

function. Results from this approach are presented for the generic general-aviation aircraft

model, described in Sec 3.2. Fig 4.5 shows a ow chart of the process completed at every time

step.

Figure 4.5: Flow chart for post-stall aerodynamic prediction at each time step

While simulation in post-stall is desired, it is not the main focus of this research. However, to

show the potential of the superposition approach for non-linear simulation, the current method

is used along with the post-stall prediction code to entertain a few brief cases in post-stall ight.

In the following subsection, the eect of aircraft stall on the motion is explored by considering

symmetric and asymmetric perturbations to the aircraft trimmed near the stall condition.

4.3.1 Post-Stall Condition

In this subsection, three examples are used to present the responses to horizontal-tail incidence

perturbation (similar to elevator-angle perturbation) for a ight velocity close to the stall con-

dition. The rst and second examples are for symmetric-ight initial conditions, and the third

is an example in which the initial condition has an asymmetry of 10-deg sideslip angle. In

the rst example, the response is studied using a linear lift curve with no stall. In the second

example, the same initial conditions are used with a non-linear lift curve with a well-dened

64

stall. The two lift curves are shown in Fig. 4.6. In these two examples, the initial conditions

are for symmetric ight even though the simulation is for 6-DOF ight. In the third example,

the asymmetric initial conditions are used with the nonlinear lift curve. The aim is to illustrate

the eect of wing stall on the motion. In the third example, the motion is simulated with an

initial asymmetry to explore if asymmetric stall is induced and whether there is a substantial

eect on the motion.

The ight-path responses for the three examples are shown in Figs. 4.7 and 4.8 for approxi-

mately 20 seconds of ight time after the start of the simulation. Comparing examples 1 and 2,

it is seen that there is greater loss in initial altitude in example 2 compared to example 1. This

is the result of wing stall. However, the ight path is along the plane of symmetry. In contrast,

the ight path for example 3 is clearly one in which signicant loss of altitude is combined with

a rapid turn. This is a result of asymmetric stall and is indicative of an incipient spin. The

spanwise C

l

distributions after 1 second of ight for the three examples are shown in Fig. 4.9.

The wing is unstalled in example 1, has symmetric stall pattern in example 2, and has a clearly

asymmetric stall pattern in example 3. The asymmetric stall behavior causes a roll and yaw to

the right, resulting in an incipient spin to the right.

0 5 10 15

0

0.5

1

1.5

(deg)

C

l

Linear lift curve

Nonlinear lift curve

Figure 4.6: Lift curves for the post-stall examples.

65

100 0 100 200

50

0

50

100

150

x (m)

z

(

m

)

1. No stall

2. Sym. stall

3. Asym. stall

Figure 4.7: View of the ight paths from the side (x vs. z).

66

0 200 400 600

100

0

100

200

300

400

x (m)

y

(

m

)

1. No stall

2. Sym. stall

3. Asym. stall

Figure 4.8: View of the ight paths from the above (x vs. y).

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Spanwise coordinate (m)

C

l

1. No stall

2. Sym. stall

3. Asym. stall

Figure 4.9: Spanwise C

l

distributions after 1 second for the three examples.

67

Chapter 5

Conclusions

This thesis presents a novel approach to simulate aircraft dynamics. In this approach, the

aerodynamics of the conguration is computed at every time step of the ordinary dierential

equation solution. The aerodynamic analysis uses rapid superposition of pre-computed lift

distributions, enabling high computational eciency. This approach is a departure from tra-

ditional use of stability derivatives based on linearization assumptions. The current method

needs the geometry to be described in a VLM and the necessary basic and additional lift dis-

tributions stored. The results for the methodology used to model the dynamics were compared

with the AVL code using several static and dynamic examples. An key observation made was

that when comparing the two methods, while the lift distributions are in consistently close

agreement, the integration of the loadings result in noticeable discrepancies due to second order

eects not taken into account. These are most evident when dealing with lateral/directional

motion. However, even with the obvious disagreements, the results are still very comparable.

This approach of using lift superposition principles to model aerodynamic loading in ight is

used in conjunction with a recently developed post-stall aerodynamic prediction code. Thus

post-stall aerodynamics are coupled with ight dynamics in the current approach.

The results presented in this thesis illustrate the potential of the method in coupling post-

stall aerodynamic modeling with the associated ight dynamics. Real-time computations of

such interactions can enable use of this method in ight simulators for design evaluation and

training. The method, however, is still at an early stage of development. Augmentations to

handle body and propulsion eects, swept wings, and control surfaces are needed before it can

be used for high-delity simulations of full aircraft congurations. Additional validation is also

needed. Nevertheless, the method shows great potential for use in real-time ight simulations.

68

REFERENCES

[1] Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control , John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., 1996.

[2] Steven, B. L. and Lewis, F. L., Aircraft Control and Simulation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

2003.

[3] Murch, A. M. and Foster, J. V., Recent NASA Research on Aerodynamic Modeling of

Post-Stall and Spin Dynamics of Large Transport Airplanes, AIAA Paper 2007-0463,

2007.

[4] Mukherjee, R. and Gopalarathnam, A., Poststall Prediction of Multiple-Lifting-Surface

Congurations Using a Decambering Approach, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 3, May

June 2006, pp. 660668.

[5] Gopalarathnam, A. and Segawa, H., Use of Lift Superposition for Improved Computa-

tional Eciency of Wing Post-Stall Prediction, AIAA Paper 2008-7049, 2008.

[6] Anderson, R. F., Determination of the Characteristics of Tapered Wings, NACA Rept.

572, 1936.

[7] Abbott, I. H. and von Doenho, A. E., Theory of Wing Sections, McGraw-Hill Book

Company, 1949.

[8] Kuethe, A. M. and Chow, C.-Y., Foundations of Aerodynamics: Bases of Aerodynamic

Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986.

[9] Tani, I., A Simple Method of Calculating the Induced Velocity of a Monoplane Wing,

Rep. No. 111 (vol. 9, 3), Aero. Res. Inst., Tokyo Imperial Univ., August 1934.

[10] Sivells, J. C. and Neely, R. H., Method for Calculating Wing Characteristics by Lifting-

Line Theory Using Nonlinear Section Lift Data, NACA TN 1269, April 1947.

[11] Schairer, R. S., Unsymmetrical Lift Distributions on a Stalled Monoplane Wing, Thesis,

California Institute of Technology, 1939.

[12] Sears, W. R., Some Recent Developments in Airfoil Theory, Journal of The Aeronautical

Sciences, Vol. 23, May 1956, pp. 490499.

[13] Piszkin, S. T. and Levinsky, E. S., Nonlinear Lifting Line Theory for Predicting Stalling

Instabilities on Wings of Moderate Aspect Ratio, Tech. rep., General Dynamics Convair

Report CASD-NSC-76-001, June 1976.

[14] Levinsky, E. S., Theory of Wing Span Loading Instabilities Near Stall, AGARD Confer-

ence Proceedings No. 204, September 1976.

[15] Anderson, J. D., Corda, S., and VanWie, D. M., Numerical Lifting Line Theory Applied

to Drooped Leading-Edge Wings Below and Above Stall, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 17,

No. 12, 1980, pp. 898904.

69

[16] McCormick, B. W., An Iterative Non-Linear Lifting Line Model for Wings with Unsym-

metrical Stall, SAE Transactions Paper No. 891020, 1989, pp. 9198.

[17] Tseng, J. B. and Lan, C. E., Calculation of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airplane

Congurations at High Angles of Attack, NASA CR 4182, 1988.

[18] van Dam, C. P., Kam, J. C. V., and Paris, J. K., Design-Oriented High-Lift Methodology

for General Aviation and Civil Transport Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 6,

NovemberDecember 2001, pp. 10761084.

[19] Katz, J. and Plotkin, A., Low-Speed Aerodynamics, Cambridge Aerospace Series, Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2nd ed., 2001.

[20] Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P., Numerical Recipes

in Fortran The Art of Scientic Computing, Cambridge University Press, New York,

2nd ed., 1992, pp. 372375.

[21] Mukherjee, R., Gopalarathnam, A., and Kim, S., An Iterative Decambering Approach for

Post-Stall Prediction of Wing Characteristics Using Known Section Data, AIAA Paper

2003-1097, January 2003.

[22] Drela, M. and Youngren, H., AVL: Users Guide, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 33-207,

Cambridge, MA 02139, http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl.

[23] Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control , McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2nd

ed., 1998.

70

APPENDIX

71

Appendix A

More Examples with Yaw Rate

Because this research uses an ad hoc approach to model the local velocity changes due to yaw

rate, this appendix is added to provide more examples for further comparison of the results

obtained from the superposition approach and those arrived at using AVL. Note that intention

here is not to provide thorough evaluations and discussions for each example, but instead for a

more broad discussion regarding the limitations of the approach.

A.1 Varying Yaw Rate at

trim

In this section, the angle of attack is held constant at its trim value of about 3.5

, and given

yaw rates of 50

/s, 100

within the prescribed limits).

The loading comparisons between AVL and the superposition approach show that all three

examples lift distributions are in close agreement. The only detail worth noting is that the

local lift coecients on the left side of the horizontal tail see higher values in magnitude for

the superposition solution, while seeing lower values on the right hand side. The two have the

same shape but the superposed solution has shifted downward by a value of about 0.004.

The tables in the section oer better insight to problems that would arise when attempting

to simulate aerobatic maneuvers or divergent ight conditions such as a spin. It is apparent that

the reduced order drag model used in the superposition approach would cause large discrepan-

cies in longitudinal motion since the aerodynamic eciency (L/D) is a key term in Phugoid

damping. This is evident because of the large dierences in drag as yaw rate is increased

without much change in lift.

The side force comparisons appear to be in agreement for these cases. Really the only

issue aside from drag in these examples is the rolling moment comparison, which is actually

consistent with example provided in Section 3.6.

72

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

alpha = 3.4976deg, r = 50.3deg/s

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.1: Breakdown of Surface Loading:

trim

=3.5

/s, r=50

/s

73

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.2: Breakdown of Surface Loading:

trim

=3.5

/s, r=100

/s

74

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.3: Breakdown of Surface Loading:

trim

=3.5

/s, r=145

/s

75

Table A.1: C

x

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 0.0174 0.0128 36.2

trim 100 0.0265 0.0114 132

trim 145 0.0400 0.0095 319

Table A.2: C

y

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 0.0515 0.0516 0.3

trim 100 0.0103 0.0103 0.0

trim 145 0.1490 0.1494 0.3

Table A.3: C

z

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 -0.2825 -0.2793 -1.1

trim 100 -0.2725 -0.2690 -1.3

trim 145 -0.2576 -0.2536 -1.6

76

Table A.4: C

L

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 -0.2825 -0.2793 -1.1

trim 100 -0.2725 -0.2690 -1.3

trim 145 -0.2576 -0.2536 -1.6

Table A.5: C

l

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 0.0112 0.0130 -14.2

trim 100 0.0218 0.0254 -14.1

trim 145 0.0307 0.0356 -13.9

Table A.6: C

m

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 0.0 0.0081 -100

trim 100 0.0 0.0185 -100

trim 145 0.0 0.0337 -100

Table A.7: C

n

Comparison for Varying r at Trim

r (

trim 50 0.0303 0.0298 1.7

trim 100 0.0607 0.0598 1.6

trim 145 0.0881 0.0868 1.4

77

A.2 Varying with Constant Yaw Rate

Now the yaw rate is held constant at 50

to 25

in increments of 5

(resulting in r values of 0.10, 0.15, 0.18, 0.21, and 0.24, which fall within

the prescribed limits).

The lift distribution comparisons show that the method holds very well until the angle

of attack is increased to 25

deviation.

Interestingly, the C

X

comparisons improve as angle of attack is increased. The side force

coecient comparison seems to deviate in almost a linearly increasing fashion. Again, the

rolling moment coecient comparison is relatively consistent and remains within a disagreement

of fteen and twenty percent. The only large problem with these examples is the drastically

worsening trends in the yawing moment comparisons. Any case which involves an angle of

attack over fteen degrees along with a substantial yaw rate will result undesirable comparisons

between the two methods.

78

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.4: Breakdown of Surface Loading: =5

/s, r=50

/s

79

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.5: Breakdown of Surface Loading: =10

/s, r=50

/s

80

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.6: Breakdown of Surface Loading: =15

/s, r=50

/s

81

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

alpha = 20deg, r = 49.7deg/s

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.7: Breakdown of Surface Loading: =20

/s, r=50

/s

82

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Wing Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL Wing

Superposition for Wing

AVL Solution for Wing

(a) Wing

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

HT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL HT

Superposition for HT

AVL Solution for HT

(b) Horizontal Tail

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

VT Span Location

S

p

a

n

w

i

s

e

C

l

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

Superposition VS AVL VT

Superposition for VT

AVL Solution for VT

(c) Vertical Tail

Figure A.8: Breakdown of Surface Loading: =25

/s, r=50

/s

83

Table A.8: C

x

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s

(

) r (

5 50 0.0349 0.0271 28.6

10 50 0.1338 0.1128 18.7

15 50 0.2930 0.2569 14.1

20 50 0.5077 0.4592 10.5

25 50 0.7717 0.7192 7.3

Table A.9: C

y

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s

(

) r (

5 50 0.0632 0.0636 -0.6

10 50 0.0920 0.0955 -3.8

15 50 0.1088 0.1205 -9.7

20 50 0.1152 0.1411 -18.4

25 50 0.1114 0.1582 -29.6

84

Table A.10: C

z

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s

(

) r (

5 50 -0.4239 -0.4197 -1.0

10 50 -0.8860 -0.8848 -0.1

15 50 -1.3237 -1.3428 1.4

20 50 -1.7234 -1.7887 3.7

25 50 -2.0725 -2.0725 6.5

Table A.11: C

l

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s

(

) r (

5 50 0.0170 0.0201 -15.1

10 50 0.0408 0.0490 -16.7

15 50 0.0685 0.0831 -17.6

20 50 0.0975 0.1193 -18.3

25 50 0.1258 0.1552 -19.0

Table A.12: C

m

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s

(

) r (

5 50 -0.0997 -0.0868 -14.9

10 50 -0.4317 -0.4025 -7.2

15 50 -0.7563 -0.7186 -5.2

20 50 -1.0633 -1.0349 -2.7

25 50 -1.3433 -1.3515 0.6

Table A.13: C

n

Comparison for Varying at r=50

/s

(

) r (

5 50 -0.0366 -0.0355 -3.0

10 50 -0.0496 -0.0455 -9.1

15 50 -0.0532 -0.0532 -20.2

20 50 -0.0484 -0.0331 -46.3

25 50 -0.0358 -0.0125 -186

85

- wheel_simulation_wing-light_090430.pdfUploaded bybertan dağıstanlı
- FLIGHT SIMULATION OF A HIGH WING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLEUploaded byamir
- 1-s2.0-S0888327015005452-mainUploaded bysamuele
- Wheel Simulation Wing-light 090430Uploaded bybertan dağıstanlı
- SyllabusUploaded byd_smilth
- Bernoulli's Principle Disputation.Uploaded byPiac Wonkit
- Hydro Dynamic Forces - CopyUploaded byvikasgahlyan
- Flight LawsUploaded byKishan Chowhan
- quadrotor.pdfUploaded byJulio Barrera
- 21Uploaded byManoj Paul John
- [1]1-s2.0-S1877705814006328-mainUploaded byHenil Patel
- Water Control Products Crank Lift Spec SheetUploaded byNawaz Rumjaun
- 08 Structural LoadsUploaded byÁlvaro Arroyo Parejo
- Wings, Round Cylinders and CirculationUploaded bychirag
- Flight Simulation PosterUploaded byRaksok Khankhampoch
- 48701Uploaded bykrishima
- Basic Fire Alarm TrainingUploaded byrozool
- AerodynamicsUploaded byPritamjit Rout
- PENILAIAN KURIKULUM 2Uploaded byorangramai
- Unsteady Airfoil in Supersonic FlowUploaded byManikandanMurugaiah
- 25787Uploaded byCid Castro
- Fluent-Adv Turbulence 15.0 L05 Case StudiesUploaded byEnrique Flores
- flightnormat-5_1.pdfUploaded bysptbala
- Leading Edge Vortices in Insect FlightUploaded byRohith Jayasimha Rao
- The Pitot TubeUploaded bysabya512
- StabilityUploaded byAli Raza
- Airfoil Generation With a Desktop Computer Using Lighthill's Exact Inverse MethodUploaded byalexiel1806
- Experimental Aerodyamics SyllabusUploaded bytjpk
- VAWT StudyUploaded byRicardo Sanzana
- EOA UNIT 4& 5Uploaded bybharathkumarengineer

- 1D Consolidation - Terzhagi Theory (SEP 2010 Color)Uploaded bybsitler
- Brml PackageUploaded byPaul Malcolm
- Dirac-SeaUploaded byHerge Haddock
- Ttd ManualUploaded byjim_kelly
- Intro ProbabilityUploaded byJohn_cq002
- SPE 128923 MPD CementingUploaded bydigger_797
- AQA GCSE Mathematics-Unit 2F-Practice Paper Set 4-V1.1Uploaded bynaz2you
- SO4203-2AUploaded byanhufriend
- Darren Cox May2008Uploaded byMos Craciun
- RCA Gravity.v7.AnonymUploaded byAnDis
- 2872Uploaded byKaushik Sengupta
- The effect of tray geometry on the sieve tray efficiencyUploaded bymy_heart_will_go_on_2012
- causal pathogen in grouperUploaded byFazrul Hafizul Mna
- Wall Gradient CalculatorUploaded byDuabelasyusuf
- Lug for SkidUploaded bysurefooted1
- 2013-3 Batch Plant ChecklistUploaded byazhar
- Eos500d CanonUploaded byaggouni
- The Fourth-Order Bessel-type Differential EquationUploaded byCarmine Russo
- 2009 Willför - Carbohydrate analysis of plant materials....pdfUploaded byskakind
- 34 Waves-EM SpectrumUploaded byeltytan
- ecss-q-st-70-01cUploaded byspaceengineering0815
- 905 SteamerUploaded byRadijska Postaja Koprivnica
- Artikel BufferUploaded byarilestaari
- 178. sathiyaAMS53-56-2013Uploaded byebenesarb
- Detectors in AstrophysicsUploaded byjeroen_337420033
- sw4Uploaded byAhmed Shoeeb
- Master Foods 12 mUploaded bySarfaraz
- Parallel DNA Polymerase Chain Reaction_ Synthesis of Two Different PCR Products From a DNA Template - F1000ResearchUploaded byjob88264629
- Admissions.iitd.Uploaded byVikas Kumar
- Five Year Plan Fall 2008iUploaded bymiro1993