Summer School 11 Airplanes Day2

Autonomous Systems Lab
Autonomous (Micro) Aerial Vehicles:

Design, Perception, and Control
Airplane Stability, Dynamic Model and Control
Autonomous Systems Lab @ ETH
Contents
Today:
3. Static vs. Dynamic Stability
4. Dynamic Model and Control
Coordinate Frames and
Representation of
Orientation
Assumptions and
Simplifications
Derivation of the Model
Plant Analysis
Control Approaches
5. Case Study: Solar Airplanes
Principles
Design Considerations
senseSoar
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Airplanes
1. Aerodynamic Basics
2. Performance
Considerations
3. Static vs. Dynamic
Stability
4. Dynamic Model and
Control
5. Case Study:
Solar Airplanes
Additional Notations
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Background image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ 5/5c/C_172_line_drawing_oblique.svg
z
B
x
B
y
B
F
T
c
M
A
G
Forces
F
A
: Aerodynamic
force
F
T
: Thrust
G : Weight
V
o
| (-)
Moments
L
A
: Roll moment
M
A
: pitch moment
N
A
: Yaw moment
L/M/N
T
:Thrust moment
Angles
o : Angle of attack
| : Sideslip angle
c : Thrust-vector angle
= y
S
x
S z
S
S: Stability Frame
D=-F
A,xs
-F
A,zs
=L
F
A,ys
=Y
F
A
L
A
N
A
p
r
q
u
v
w
Speed
( )
T
B
w v u V , , =
( )
T
B
r q p , , = e
Angular Rates
Important Points
: CoG
: Aerodynamic Center
( ) 0 ~ c c
AC
M o
Stability: an Overview
Static stability Dynamic stability
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Example: Longitudinal Stability
Disturbance Aerodyn.
reaction
torque
Disturbance No reaction
torque
Stable
Neutral
Disturbance Reaction
torque
Unstable
Stable
Neutral
Unstable
T
r
e
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
a
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
Criteria for Static Stability (1)
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Velocity Stability
u v w
F
o
r
c
e
s
x
y
z
( ) 0 < + c c
Tx Ax
F F u
( ) 0 < + c c
Ty Ay
F F v
( ) 0 < + c c
Tz Az
F F w
0 < c c
y
C |
0 < c c c c
D Tx
C u C u
0 > c c
L
C o
Apply in Stability Coordinate Frame
Criteria for Static Stability (2)
Directional Stability Rotational Stability
| o p q r
T
o
r
q
u
e
s
roll
pitch
yaw
Fixed Wing Aircraft
( ) 0 < + c c
T A
L L |
0 C
l
< c c |
( ) 0 > + c c
T A
N N |
0 C
N
> c c |
( ) 0 < + c c
T A
M M o
0 C
M
< c c o
( ) 0 < + c c
T A
L L p
0 < c c
l
C p
( ) 0 < + c c
T A
M M q
0 < c c
M
C q
( ) 0 < + c c
T A
N N r
0 < c c
N
C r
(Moment L Coeff.)
Example: Longitudinal Static Stability
Equilibrium condition:
Condition for stability:
Fixed Wing Aircraft
0 C
M
< c c o
0 C
M
=
o
M
C
0 C
M
< c c o
0 C
M
> c c o
2
3
1
2 3
Aerodyn. Centers
Wing (mean chord)
Tail
Zero Lift Line
CoG
1
E
q
u
i
-
l
i
b
r
i
u
m
(
t
r
i
m
)
Additional Influences:
Fuselage L, D, M
F
T
, M from
propulsion/slipstream
Stability criterion:
Aerodynamic Center
of the Airplane
BEHIND CoG
Elev.
up
down
Autonomous Systems Lab @ ETH Fixed Wing Aircraft
Different Airplane Configurations
Sailplane:
Goal of energy efficiency and flight endurance
Large wingspan, low weight
Low speed
Low payload
Fighter aircraft:
Goal of high speed, high climbing rate, high maneuverability,
stealthiness
Strong engines, short wings (swept) with high chord length,
complex geometry, large control surfaces
High fuel consumption (and thus limited operating range)
Tandem plane:
Goal of increased longitudinal stability
With center of gravity between the two wings, the plane is more
stable than a classical design
Biplane:
More compact layout with shorter wingspan
Higher maneuverability
Very popular in the early days of aviation
But: more drag and less lift than a classical design with equal wing
area
Different airplane configurations
Flying wing aircraft:
Most commonly used in the low to medium speed range
High stealth capabilities (low visibility for radar)
Fuel efficient due to low drag
Stability issues: directional and longitudinal
Problem: no passenger windows (in commercial application)
Search for the limits
SOLARIMPULSE
Why Simulation?
Airbus A380
Before first flight in 2005, it flew only in Simulation !
Why Model the Dynamics of an Airplane?
Airplane modeling for many reasons:
System Analysis: the model allows evaluating the
characteristics of the future airplane in flight or its behavior in
various conditions
Stability
Controllability
Power required fuel needs
Controllability in the case of actuator failure
Control Laws Design and Simulation: the model allows
comparing various control techniques and tune the parameters
of the autopilot system
Gain of time and money
Higher performance of the autopilot
No risk of damage compared to real tests
Pilot Training in Simulator
Allows simulating and training especially emergency situations
Coordinate Frames
Earth fixed frame
(regarded as inertial):
Body fixed frame:
zB yB xB
e e e

, ,
zE yE xE
e e e

, ,
y
E
z
E
x
E
y
1
=z
1
x
1
y
2
=
z
2
x
2
=x
B
y
B
z
B
y
E
z
E
x
E
y
1
=z
1
x
1
y
2
=
z
2
x
2
y
E
z
E
x
E
y
1
=z
1
x
1
Rotation Matrix (B to E) is parametrized with 3 successive rotations
using the zyx Tait-Brian Angles (specific kind of Euler Angles):
E
B
R
Roll:
around x
2
:
Frame B
3
) (
x
R
Pitch:
around y
1
:
Frame 2
2
) (u
y
R
Yaw:
around z
E
:
Frame 1
1
) (
z
R
=
E
B
R ) (
z
R ) (u
y
R ) (
x
R
(post-multiply for rotations
around new axes)
Coordinate Frames
The rotation matrix calculated:
Be careful with the boundaries:
The inverse transformation:
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Roll (-t<<t) Pitch (-t/2<u<t/2) Yaw (-t<<t)
(
(
(
=
) ( ) ( 0
) ( ) ( 0
0 0 1
) (

c s
s c R
x
(
(
(
=
) ( 0 ) (
0 1 0
) ( 0 ) (
) (
u u
u u
u
c s
s c
R
y
(
(
(

=
1 0 0
0 ) ( ) (
0 ) ( ) (
) (

c s
s c
R
z
(
(
(
+
+
= =
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
u u u
u u u
u u u
c c s c s
s c c s s c c s s s c s
s s c s c c s s s c c c
R R R R
x y z
E
B
( ) ( )
T
E
B
E
B
B
E
R R R = =
1
Coordinates System
Angular Rates:
Time variation of Tait-Bryan angles
Body angular rates
Singularity: for (R
r
becomes singular)
Gimbal Lock
( ) u

, ,
( ) r q p , ,
(
(
(
=
u
u
u
cos cos sin 0
cos sin cos 0
sin 0 1
r
R
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
r
R
r
q
p
2
t
u =
Forces and Moments
Forces and moments acting on the airplane
Weight at the center of gravity
Thrust of propeller: complex task will not be presented
here
Aerodynamic forces on each part of the airplane reduced to
the CoG: see previous lecture
Wing
Tail
Fuselage
z
x
y
T
M
L
N
G
V
o
D
L
Y
Definitions, Assumptions and Simplifications
Definitions
Remember: origin of body-fixed coordinate frame set into center of gravity
Assumptions and simplifications
Rigid and symmetric structure (constant, diagonal inertia matrix)
Constant mass
Motor without dynamics and without gyroscopic effects
Aerodynamics (list not complete):
We dont enter stall (operation in the linear c
l
domain)
Neglect fuselage lift/sideslip force (can be extended to the general case)
Inputs/Outputs/States
Velocities (Body Fr.): u,v,w
Turn rates (Body Fr.): p,q,r
Position (Earth Fr.): x,y,z
Tait-Bryan angles: ,u,
Nonlinear
Aircraft
Dynamics
Forces
Moments
at CoG
u,v,w;
p,q,r
x,y,z;
,u,
Propulsion,
Mechanics,
Aerodynamics
Elevator
Aileron
Rudder
Throttle
Development of the Model
Forces and moments
represented in body frame, attacking at the CoG:
Fixed Wing Aircraft
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
+
=
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
=
u o o c
u
u o o c
c
c
o o
o o
cos cos cos sin sin
cos sin
sin sin cos cos
0
0
sin
0
cos
cos sin
sin cos
mg L D F
mg Y
mg L D F
g
mR
F
F
L D
Y
L D
F
T
T
B
E
T
T
tot
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
T
T
T
tot
N
M
L
N
M
L
M

Application of Newtons Second Law
Fixed Wing Aircraft
( )
( )
( )
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
+
=
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
(
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
(
xx yy zz
zz xx yy
yy zz xx
zz
yy
xx
zz
yy
xx
I I pq r I
I I pr q I
I I qr p I
r
q
p
I
I
I
r
q
p
r
q
p
I
I
I
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
( )= = V m
dt
d
F
b tot

Euler
Derivatives
(
(
(
+
+
+
=
(
(
(
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
qu pv w
pw ru v
rv qw u
m
w
v
u
r
q
p
w
v
u
m
( ) =
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
(
= =
r
q
p
I
I
I
dt
d
I
dt
d
M
zz
yy
xx
b b tot
0 0
0 0
0 0
e

Summarized equations of motion:
Translation
Fixed Wing Aircraft
( )
( ) u o o c
u
u o o c
cos cos cos sin sin
1
cos sin
1
sin sin cos cos
1
g L D F
m
pv qu w
g Y
m
ru pw v
g L D F
m
qw rv u
T
T
+ =
+ + =
+ + =
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
w
v
u
R
z
y
x
E
B

Rotation:
Fixed Wing Aircraft
( ) | |
( ) | |
( ) | |
xx yy T
zz
zz xx T
yy
yy zz T
xx
I I pq N N
I
r
I I pr M M
I
q
I I qr L L
I
p
+ =
+ =
+ =
1
1
1
(
(
(
(
(
+ +
=
(
(
(
=
(
(
(

u u
cos
cos
cos
sin
sin cos
cos tan sin tan
1
r q
r q
r q p
r
q
p
R
r

c
Stationary Flight
Turning
Demand for coordinated turn:
L increases with
V
min
increases with
Fixed Wing Aircraft
0
0
=
=
e
V
const
c
= ~
=

o u
0 = Y
R
2
2
mR
R
mV
=
D
F
T
L
G
c
cos
1
c
cos
1
Control of UAVs: Introduction
Control of airplanes is not easy:
Inherently non-linear
Low control authority
Actuator saturation
double integrator characteristics
MIMO: 4 inputs, 6 DoF, thus underactuated
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Control vs. Guidance
A popular concept: cascaded control loops
Control = low level part
Stabilize attitude and speed
Guidance = high level part
Follow pathes or trajectory
Effect: Reject constant low frequency
perturbation (constant wind)
Guidance
The Plant
Some remarks about the conventions used in this lecture:
Input limits/units:
Aileron:
Down deflection / left = positive deflection
positive deflections will induce negative moments!!
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Velocities (Body Fr.): u,v,w
Turn rates (Body Fr.): p,q,r
Position (Earth Fr.): x,y,z
Tait-Bryan angles: ,u,
Nonlinear
Aircraft
Dynamics
Forces
Moments
u,v,w;
p,q,r
x,y,z;
,u,
Propulsion,
Mechanics,
Aerodynamics
Elevator
Aileron
Rudder
Throttle
| |
T
z y x r q p w v u X u , , , , , , , , , , , =
State
vector:
(
(
(
(
(
+ =
=
u
v
w u V
Y
T
2 2
Output
e.g.:
(
(
(
(
=
thr
rudd
ail
elev
U
o
o
o
o
Input
vector:
| | | | | | | | 1 , 0 ; 1 , 1 ; 1 , 1 ; 1 , 1 e e e e
thr rudd ail elev
o o o o
right ail left ail ail , ,
o o o + =
The Plant: Separation of the Linearized System
Fixed Wing Aircraft
u, w;
q;
u
thr
elev
o
o
A
A Longitudinal
Plant
v;
p, r;
rudd
ail
o
o
A
A
Lateral
Plant
im
re
2
-2
-2
Short Period
Mode:
= 5 rad/s
Phugoid
Mode:
= 0.6 rad/s
im
re
4
-4
-4
Roll Subsidence
Mode
Spiral Mode
Dutch Roll
Mode
= 5 rad/s
Corresponding Poles (Aerobatic Model Airplane)
Subsystem
The Plant: Separation of the Linearized System
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Short Period Mode: oscillation of angle of attack
Phugoid mode: exchange between kinetic and potential energy
Spiral Divergence
Dutch Roll
Mode:
combined
yaw-roll
oscillation
Grafics adapted from:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt9.htm and http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Flugerprobung.html
Simulation (Sky Sailor)
Behaviour in open-loop:
Natural Stability
Flight speed, glide slope
very close to reality
Initial condition:
Roll 0, Pitch -12, Yaw 0
Speed 8.2 m/s
Control surfaces at 0
Motor off
Stabilized after ~50 s
Flight speed ~8.2 m/s
Glide Ratio ~26
10m
260m
Optimal Control: LQG
Problems:
Non-linear effects when further away from operating point
Computation Costs arizing from:
Linearization
Solution to Riccatti Equation
Too expensive, cannot be done on-line
Way out: compute gains off-line as a look-up table
for discretized state space: Gain-Scheduling
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Attitude
Controller
PI*: PI with anti-reset wind-up
Gain scaled with 1/V
T
2
Body Rate
Controller
r
d
q
d
p
d
PI*
PI*
PI*
A Reasonably Simple Cascaded Control Scheme
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Airplane
Dynamics
o
rudd
o
elev
o
ail
X
P
P
u
d
d
Constrain to
coordinated turn:
u u
u u
sin cos cos

sin cos sin
w u
u g w
d d
d
+
+ +
=

0 cos sin = + u g ru pw
d
u
d
d
R
r
Speed Controller
PI*
o
thr
Bandwidths of succeeding Loops
must be sufficiently larger!
Interference of parallel loops
V
d
Trajectory
Generation
and
Guidance
Autonomous Systems Lab
Autonomous (Micro) Aerial Vehicles:
Design, Perception, and Control
Solar Airplanes and senseSoar Case Study
History and Prospectives of Solar Flight
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Working Principle of Solar-Electric Airplanes
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Excess
time
Performance Measures
Time 12 h 24 h
Power
E_bat
Solar
Power
Required
Power
Endurance
Time 12 h 24 h
Power
E_bat
Solar
Power
Required
Power
Fixed Wing Aircraft
How do I do this?
What performance can I expect?
Various
missions
High Altitude Long
Endurance (HALE)
Low Atmosphere
Surveillance
Different degrees of
autonomy
Mars mission?
Various payload
requirements
Sensors (cameras)
Communication links
Processing power
Navigation system
Human?
Choice of Design
Variables
Wingspan
Aspect Ratio
Battery Size
Solar-Electric Airplane Conceptual Design
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Operation of the Conceptual Design Tool
Run (constrained)
optimization
Core Module:
Aerodynamics
Power Train Mass Estimation
Structure Dimensioning
Environment
Altitude, latitude,
longitude, day, ...
Design variables:
Wingspan,
aspect ratio,
battery mass
Technological
parameters:
Efficiencies,
mass models,
rib or shell wing, ...
Payload
Mass,
power
consumption
Performance Evaluation
Simulation of the Day
Mode of
Operation:
Allow variable
altitude yes/no
Masses Polars
Endurance /
Excess Time
Max. Altitude for
Continuous Flight
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Rechargeable Li-Ion batteries only
considered: 240 Wh/kg
Solar cells of highest power-per-
weight ratio:
19% efficiency
420 g/m
2
including encapsulation
Horizontal wing, covered
completely
Composite structure: calculations
with predefined geometry
Technology Today and Related Assumptions
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Structural Sizing This Is Why It Is Done
Noths [17] approach:
base on statistics
Solarimpulse
A380
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Determine the necessary/minimum feasible thicknesses complying
with all load cases for all parts:
Recalculate aerodynamics, load cases, propulsion and total mass;
repeat until convergence
Structural Sizing This Is How It Is Done
Criteria
Bending of the spar flanges: max. 10 deflection, compression buckling, yield
Specific to shell wing
Shear in the spar web: yield, shear buckling
Torsion in the shell: shear buckling, yield,
max. 3 twist
Specific to rib wing:
Combined shear force and torque in the spar
shell: shear buckling, yield, max. 3 twist
Ribs compression and shear buckling due to
aerodynamic forces and skin tension
Shear buckling, max. displacement and yield
of leading and trailing edge profiles
Fuselage bending: buckling, yield, max. deflection 2
Stabilizers: identical to main wing
Shell wing concept Rib wing concept
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Constant altitude: straightforward simulation
Power for level flight:
Total electric power:
Solar Power: needs a model for the irradiance I(lat, h, t)
Performance Evaluation
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Performance Evaluation Optimal Profile
H
e
i
g
h
t

[
k
m
]
B
a
t
t
e
r
y

E
n
e
r
g
y

[
M
J
]
I
r
r
a
d
i
a
n
c
e

[
k
W
/
m
2
]
Time of Day [h]
Battery full,
start climbing
Gliding mode
Back at level flight
Battery empty,
power equilib.
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Possible Applications
www.telegraph.co.uk
Yingxiu, May 15th 2008 www.rega.ch
Wildfires in California October 2007 Altair/SR
Disaster Scenario Search and Rescue (SAR)
High-Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Early Wildfire Detection
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Optimal Size for Low Atmosphere
Current
technology
Aspect ratio
12
Minimal
payload:
0.6kg, 7W
Latitude
37.34N
June 21
700m AMSL
Skyclear
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Airplane:
Wingspan: 3m
Aspect Ratio: 12
Payload: 0.6kg, 4W
Conditions:
Minimum altitude:
700m AMSL
Performance of a Small Solar UAS
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Payload: 0.6 kg , 4W
Summer Solstice
Maximum Const. Altitude for Sustained Flight
Latitude [N]
Latitude [N]
A
s
p
.

R
a
t
i
o

[
-
]
W
i
n
g
s
p
a
n

[
m
]
M
a
x
.

A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
k
m
]
B
a
t
t
e
r
y

M
a
s
s

[
k
g
]
T
r
u
e

A
i
r
s
p
e
e
d

[
m
/
s
]
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Project started in 2004 within
the framework of an ESA Project
Objective:
Be able to fly continuously
24 hours
1 month around June 21
Sky-Sailor
Wingspan: 3.2 meters
Weight: 2.5 kg (1.1 kg Li-Ion battery)
P_level flight: 14-16 W
P_solar : 90 W
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Conditions
Excellent irradiance
Bad wind conditions
more power needed
during the day
Achievements
Duration: 27h05
Distance: 874 km
Av. speed: 8.4 m/s
P_mean: 23W+1.9W
E_used: 675 Wh
E_obtained: 768 Wh
Sky-Sailor
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Project started in 2009
Objective:
Slightly smaller than Sky-Sailor
More sensing capability and navigation autonomy
Sustained flight not main target
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Wingspan: 3 m
Wing area: 0.725 m2
Overall mass: 3.7 kg
Solar electric power (calc.)
at AM1.0: 140 W
Endurance (calc.)
Darkness: 9.5 h
Sunshine
(summer, 47N): 16+ h
Lightweight composite structure
Solar modules integrated in shell
New low-speed / high lift airfoil
First flight planned for
Summer 2011
FLIR Tau
Chameleon
Batteries
Autopilot Atom 1.6 GHz Module
Power Board
Fixed Wing Aircraft
1. (2003) European aviation safety agency. cs-22, certification specifications for sailplanes and powered sailplanes. Available at
http://www.easa.eu.int
2. (2006) Quinetiq newsroom. http://www.qinetiq.com as on January 10th 2010
3. (2009) Azurspace. http://www.azurspace.com/ as on January 10th 2010
4. (2009) Sion Power. http://www.sionpower.com/ as on January 10th 2010
5. (2009) Solar impulse news. http:www.solarimpulse.ch, as on January 10th 2010
6. (2009) STANAG 4671 - unmanned aerial vehicles systems airworthiness requirements (usar). Nato Standardization Agency
7. Appelbaum J, Flood DJ (1990) Solar Radiation on Mars. Solar Energy 45(6), pp. 353-363.
8. Brandt SA, Gilliam FT (1995) Design analysis methodology for solar-powered aircraft. AIAA Journal of Aircraft 32(4)
9. Berry P (2000) The sunriser - a design study in solar powered flight. In: Proc. of the World Aviation Conference, San Diego, USA
10. Boucher RJ (1976) Project sunrise - a flight demonstration of astroflight model 7404 solar powered remotely piloted vehicle. In: 15th
Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA-79-1264, Las Vegas, Nevada, June 18-20
11. Due JA, Beckman WA (1980) Solar engineering of thermal processes. NASA STI/Recon Technical Report A 81:16,591
12. Hall DW, Hall SA (1984) Structural sizing of a solar powered airplane. Contractor Report 172313, NASA
13. Hertel H (1960) Leichtbau. Springer-Verlag
14. Irving FG, Morgan D (1974) The feasibility of an aircraft propelled by solar energy. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Symposium on the
Technology and Science of Low Speed and Motorless Flight, AIAA-1974-1042, Cambridge, Massachusetts
15. Noll TE, Brown JM, Perez-Davis ME, Ishmael SD, Tiany GC, Gaier M (2004) Investigation of the helios prototype aircraft mishap. Tech.
rep., NASA Langley Research Center
16. Noth A (2006) History of solar flight. Tech. rep., ETH Zurich
17. Noth A (2009) Design of solar powered airplanes for continuous ight. PhD thesis, ETH ZURICH
18. Philips WH (1980) Some design considerations for solar-powered aircraft. Tech. Rep. 1675, NASA
19. Rehmet MA, Voit-Nitschmann R, Krplin B (1997) Eine Methode zur Auslegung von Solarflugzeugen. Tech. Rep. DGLR-JT97-031,
Universitt Stuttgart, Germany
20. Tennekes H (1992) The simple science of flight - from insects to jumbo jets. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Fixed Wing Aircraft 53
References

Summer School 11 Airplanes Day2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summer School 11 Airplanes Day2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autonomous Systems Lab

Autonomous (Micro) Aerial Vehicles:

Autonomous Systems Lab @ ETH

Autonomous Systems Lab @ ETH

Autonomous Systems Lab @ ETH

Autonomous Systems Lab @ ETH

sin cos cos

You might also like