Longitudinal Handling Characteristics of a Tailless Gull

1
Investigation into the
Longitudinal Handling
Characteristics of a Gull Wing
Planform Tailless Aircraft
Student: Daniël Sarel Agenbag
Study Leader: Prof. Nico Theron
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
July 2008
2
Introduction
ƒ The gull wing configuration
ƒ Planform inspired by nature
ƒ Novel flight control system
ƒ variable outboard wing sweep for trim control
ƒ twisting elevons for pitch and roll control
ƒ rudders for directional control and circulation distribution control
ƒ Advantages of swept tailless gull wing configuration
ƒ Novel trim control eliminates problem of limited elevon range
ƒ Less parasitic drag because it is tailless
ƒ Optimisation with respect to induced drag (best Oswald efficiency)
3
Introduction
ƒ The tailless swept gull wing configuration
FWD swept
inboard
Sweep
hinge
Elevon
Flaps
Wing sweep: 20°
to 36°
Pilot/cockpit
Winglet
with
rudder
Inboard
dihedral
Outboard
anhedral
4
Handling Qualities
ƒ Why are good handling qualities important?
ƒ Lowers pilot workload.
ƒ Modern gliders all have good handling qualities.
ƒ The relevance of handling qualities to tailless aircraft
ƒ Need to investigate whether a tailless aircraft can have both
ƒ good handling qualities &
ƒ high performance
ƒ Because modern gliders have both
5
Handling Qualities
ƒ Pitch dynamics investigated in isolation
ƒ Pitch dynamics can be isolated mathematically
ƒ Many tailless aircraft handling quality issues related to pitch
dynamics.
ƒ Usually studied in isolation.
ƒ Assumptions
ƒ Lateral dynamics handling qualities are acceptable.
ƒ No tip stall.
6
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ WeltenSegler (1921)
7
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Horten
GAL/56
Fauvel
Fledermaus/Wampir
8
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Horten aircraft
9
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ GAL/56
10
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Fauvel AV36 (flying plank)
11
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Nietoperz and Wampir
12
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Northrop aircraft
13
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Marske design - The pioneer (flying plank)
14
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Long break before the new flying wing aircraft:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Laminar flow wing profiles were developed
Performance increase of conventional sailplanes
Improved handling qualities of conventional designs.
Development cost of tailless aircraft very high (approx. 10 times)
ƒ Then in late 1970’s and early 1980’s:
ƒ Laminar flow low CM wing profiles developed by Horstmann and
Quast
ƒ High performance tailless aircraft now possible
15
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Modern flying wing sailplanes
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
SB-13
Pyxis
Flair 30
SWIFT/ Millennium
ƒ Exulans
16
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Akaflieg Braunschweig SB-13 Arcus
17
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ SWIFT
18
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Flair 30
19
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Military aircraft
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
B2 stealth bomber with digital controllers
X36 - Reconfigurable flight controls
X-45
ScanEagle
ƒ Civil aircraft
ƒ Blended Wing Body (BWB) designs
20
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Northrop B2 bomber
21
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ X-planes
ƒ X-43
ƒ X-45
22
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Blended Wing Body concepts
23
Flying Wing Technology
ƒ Boeing ScanEagle UAV
24
Flight Model
ƒ Coefficient build-up method
ƒ 3DOF aircraft equations of motion
ƒ Aircraft stability derivatives
ƒ Technical challenges
ƒ No prototype aircraft - no flight test data
ƒ Dynamic scaling very difficult
ƒ Sweep angles is additional variable
25
Flight model
ƒ Solution
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Hand calculation methods estimate stability derivatives
VLM methods
General investigation - impacts accuracy of model
Linear aerodynamics, Small disturbance theory
ƒ Gull wing aircraft modelled was the Exulans glider:
26
Flight model
ƒ Four different CG configurations were chosen for evaluation
ƒ Specified at 30° sweep angle (fixed reference)
ƒ Chosen so that a wide variety of static margins were evaluated
ƒ Static margin range of models
ƒ -2.3% to 18%
27
Flight Model
ƒ Examples of lift and moment curves versus sweep angle.
CL
CM
α
Non-linear stall
not modeled
α
28
Flight model
ƒ Low pitch damping and pitch intertia
ƒ Pitch damping could be as high as -40 /rad (conventional), but
now:
Absolute
magnitude
increases with
sweep angle damping
surface further
from CG with
sweep
29
Flight model
ƒ Inertia could 43x106 kg.m2 for C5 Galaxy, 1690 kg.m2 for Piper
Cherokee, but for the Exulans case:
Varies
parabolically with
sweep
Increases with
sweep angle mass moves
away from CG
with sweep
30
Flight model
ƒ Elevon control authority
Higher control
authority with
larger sweep
angles - elevons
move away from
CG with sweep
31
Performance aspects
ƒ O-point, C-point, E-point
O-point aft of NP
C-point and NP
almost coincident
E-point forward
of NP
32
Sensitivity Analysis
ƒ Uncertainty regarding the exact magnitude of certain
mathematical model parameters, because
ƒ Prototype not built
ƒ No wind tunnel model (dynamic similarity)
ƒ Need to quantify the effect of uncertainty on handling qualities
ƒ The following parameters were investigated
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Control authority (±20%)
Static margin (-5 to 15% @ 30° sweep)
Damping (±50%)
Pitch inertia (±10%)
33
Sensitivity Analysis
ƒ The following parameters had the most effect on response:
ƒ Control authority
ƒ Static margin
ƒ Damping
ƒ The following had a small effect for the range investigated:
ƒ Inertia
34
Handling Quality Evaluation Methods
ƒ Time domain simulation
ƒ Step responses
ƒ Gust responses
ƒ C-star
ƒ Eigenvalue analysis (poles) & Military Flying Qualities Analysis
ƒ Zero analysis
ƒ Neal-Smith analysis
ƒ Mönnich-Dalldorff criteria
ƒ Tumbling analysis
35
Time Domain Simulation
ƒ Step response example
Qualitative
evaluation
Roughly
17 s
Indication
of
damping
36
Time Domain Simulation
ƒ Gust response example
Short
period
behaviour
(Strongly
damped)
Qualitative
evaluation
Phugoid
behaviour
Cosine
gust
response
function
37
C-star analysis
ƒ Use simulation/flight test step response
ƒ Mixture between normal, pitch acceleration and angular speed
around the YY-axis of the aircraft.
C = K1n + K 2θ& + K 3θ&&
*
ƒ Plotted on the C-star envelope, developed with flight tests
ƒ C-star envelope is defined with normalised C*/Fp values
Pilot stick force
38
C-star analysis
ƒ C-star criterion
Powered
approach landings
Up and away
boundaries fighter aircraft
and
manoeuvre
39
C-star analysis
ƒ Typical result
40
C-star analysis
ƒ Conclusions
ƒ Exulans has initial response that is unfavourable, but thereafter
satisfactory.
ƒ None of the cases exhibit lightly damped oscillations. Fall inside
the C-star boundaries following initial response.
41
Eigenvalue analysis
ƒ Based on calculation of
ƒ Natural frequency (ωn) and damping ratio (ζ)
of
ƒ short period and phugoid modes
ASSUMPTION:
Pitch to elevator
transfer function is
related to handling
characteristics
ƒ Short period characteristics are most important with respect to
handling characteristics (as opposed to phugoid).
ƒ Eigenvalue analysis
ƒ Aircraft mathematical model
ƒ Numerical Eigenvalue analysis routine
42
Eigenvalue analysis
ƒ For many tailless aircraft, the short period frequency is the
same as human response
ƒ 1-2 Hz.
ƒ This has the potential to lead to Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO)
43
Eigenvalue analysis
ƒ Pole criteria or “thumbprint” graph
44
Eigenvalue analysis
ƒ Typical results for Exulans
Phugoid mode is
lightly damped
Indicates a
tendency to PIO
ƒ Short period frequency and damping typically: 0.8 to 1.7 Hz
Damping = 0.5 to 1 (sub-critically damped)
45
Military flying quality specifications
ƒ MIL-8785 (US DOD handling quality standard)
ƒ Based on eigenvalue analysis
ƒ Also takes into account aircraft normal acceleration
ƒ Method:
ƒ Calculate CAP
ƒ Plot CAP versus ζsp
46
Military flying quality specifications
ƒ MIL-8785 chart
Levels are
defined by
MIL- 8785
standard
Level 1 is
best
handling
qualities
47
Military flying quality specifications
ƒ Typical results for Exulans
Config 27 - low
static margin
comes closest
to Level 1
flying qualities
48
Eigenvalue analysis conclusions
ƒ Gull wing planform not satisfactory when only inherent dynamics
investigated
BUT
ƒ the zero’s of the pitch to elevator transfer function not
investigated with eigenvalue analysis - incomplete picture
49
Zeros flying quality analysis
ƒ Based on pitch to elevator transfer function of an aircraft.
ƒ Focus on the zeros of this transfer function, not the poles
ƒ Performance criteria based on flight test data
ƒ Gull wing configuration will be placed on these maps.
50
Zeros flying quality analysis
ƒ Based on the following transfer function:
Kθ& (τ θ s + 1)
θ&
= 2
2ζ sp
s
δe
s +1
+
2
ωn
ωn
2
sp
sp
51
Zeros flying quality analysis
ƒ Nzα<= 15
Nzα > 15
Nza varies
with airspeed
52
Zeros flying quality analysis
ƒ Typical result
ƒ Not all configurations are favourable though
53
Zeros flying quality analysis
ƒ Conclusions
ƒ 20% variation in aerodynamic damping does not have a significant
effect on handling qualities
ƒ Handling qualities that vary with air speed were investigated:
ƒ Speeds higher than design trim speeds show poorer handling
qualities for the case of the Exulans
54
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Also based on pitch to elevator transfer function
ƒ Takes pilot into account (Models pilot with a servo actuator
transfer function)
ƒ Based on a performance chart created from flight test data
55
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Neal Smith mapping
56
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Transfer function of aircraft
θ
Fs
=
(
)
Kθ τ θ 2 s + 1
Kθ =
g
VT (Fs / n )
⎛ s2
⎞
2ζ sp
⎜
+
s
s + 1⎟
2
⎜ ωn
⎟
ωnsp
⎝ sp
⎠
ƒ Transfer function of pilot (based on TF of actuator)
Fs
θe
= K pe
− 0. 3 s
τ p s +1
τ p s +1
1
2
57
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Explanation of method
ƒ Pilot compensation modeled with lead and lag
58
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Performance criteria
-3dB
Droop
criteria
3.5 rad/s
Bandwidth
criteria
59
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Nichols chart explained
Lag
compensation
Gain
compensation
Lead
compensation
60
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Results
61
Neal-Smith criterion
ƒ Conclusions
ƒ Gull wing configuration has good handling qualities for a large
range of static margins and outboard wing sweep
ƒ A 20% variation in control authority does not have a large effect on
handling qualities
ƒ A 20% variation in aerodynamic damping does not have a large
effect on handling qualities
62
Turbulence handling criteria
ƒ Some tailless aircraft have poor handling qualities in turbulent
atmosphere
ƒ Mönnich-Dalldorff criteria:
CM α
CM q
(
< C Lα + C De
ρSc
) 2m
ƒ If TRUE, the aircraft should have good handling qualities in
gusty conditions
63
Turbulence handling criteria
ƒ Results
ƒ Low static margin configurations have satisfactory gust condition
handling qualities
ƒ Handling qualities deteriorate with altitude
64
Tumbling criteria
ƒ Definition: Tumbling
ƒ Hangliders prone to this phenomenon
ƒ More analysis and experiments must be done for gull wing
configuration to determine exact tumbling characteristics
Gull wing
planform in this
region: Likely to
tumble.
9
10
11
12
65
Summary of results
ƒ Region of best Oswald efficiency
66
Summary of results
ƒ Region of most favourable handling qualities
67
Summary of results
ƒ Superimpose region of good handling quality with region of best
Oswald efficiency
Overlapping
region
68
Summary of results
ƒ Intersection of region of good handling qualities and best
Oswald efficiency
69
Conclusions
ƒ Gull wing configuration has acceptable handling characteristics
for large range of static margins
ƒ A range of CG exist for the gull wing configuration where the
aircraft will have both good handling characteristics and good
Oswald efficiency
ƒ The gull wing configuration aircraft has good turbulent
atmosphere handling characteristics
70
Questions