Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

16.

333: Lecture # 7 Approximate Longitudinal Dynamics Models

A couple more stability derivatives Given mode shapes found identify simpler models that capture the main re sponses

Fall 2004

16.333 61

More Stability Derivatives

Recall from 62 that the derivative stability derivative terms Zw and Mw ended up on the LHS as modications to the normal mass and inertia terms These are the apparent mass eects some of the surrounding displaced air is entrained and moves with the aircraft Acceleration derivatives quantify this eect Signicant for blimps, less so for aircraft.

Main eect: rate of change of the normal velocity w causes a transient in the downwash from the wing that creates a change in the angle of attack of the tail some time later Downwash Lag eect

If aircraft ying at U0, will take approximately t = lt/U0 to reach the tail. Instantaneous downwash at the tail (t) is due to the wing at time t t. (t) = (t t) Taylor series expansion (t t) (t) t Note that (t) = t. Change in the tail AOA can be com puted as (t) = d d lt t = = t d d U0

Fall 2004

16.333 62

For the tail, we have that the lift increment due to the change in downwash is d lt CLt = CLt t = CLt d U0 The change in lift force is then 1 2 Lt = (U0 )tStCLt 2 In terms of the Zforce coecient St d lt Lt St CZ = 1 2 = CLt = CLt S S d U0 2 U0 S
We use c/(2U0) to nondimensionalize time, so the appropriate stabil ity coecient form is (note use Cz to be general, but we are looking
at Cz from before):
CZ 2U0 CZ CZ = = c/2U0) 0 ( c 0 d 2U0 St lt CLt = c S U0 d d = 2VH CLt d The pitching moment due to the lift increment is Mcg = ltLt 1 2 2 (U0 )t St CLt CMcg = lt 1 2 2 U0 Sc = VH CLt = VH CLt d lt d U0

Fall 2004

16.333 63

So that CM = CM c/2U0) (
0

CM 0 d lt 2U0 = VH CLt d U0 c d lt = 2VH CLt d c lt CZ c =

2U0 c

Similarly, pitching motion of the aircraft changes the AOA of the tail. Nose pitch up at rate q, increases apparent downwards velocity of tail by qlt, changing the AOA by t = qlt U0

which changes the lift at the tail (and the moment about the cg). Following same analysis as above: Lift increment Lt = CLt CZ = 1 CZq CZ (q/2U0) c
0

qlt 1 2 (U0 )tSt U0 2

Lt qlt St = CLt 2 S U0 2 (U0 )S CZ q


0

2U0 = c

2U0 lt St CL c U0 S t = 2VH CLt =

Can also show that CMq = CZq

lt c

Fall 2004

16.333 64

Approximate Aircraft Dynamic Models

It is often good to develop simpler models of the full set of aircraft dynamics.

Provides insights on the role of the aerodynamic parameters on the frequency and damping of the two modes.

Useful for the control design work as well

Basic approach is to recognize that the modes have very separate sets of states that participate in the response.

Short Period primarily and w in the same phase. The u and q response is very small.

Phugoid primarily and u, and lags by about 90. The w and q response is very small.

Full equations from before: X X


u w q
u w

m Zu mZw [Mu +Zu ] Iyy

m Zw mZw [Mw +Zw ] Iyy

0
Zq +mU0 mZw [Mq +(Zq +mU0 )] Iyy

g cos 0
mg sin 0 mZw mg sin 0 Iyy

u w q

X c Z c M c 0

Fall 2004

16.333 65

For the Short Period approximation, 1. Since u 0 in this mode, then u 0 and can eliminate the Xforce equation. Zq +mU0 mg sin 0

Zw w w Z c mZw mZw mZw

q =
[Mw +Zw ] [Mq +(Zq +mU0)] mg sin 0
q +
M c


Iyy Iyy Iyy 0 1 0 0 2. Typically nd that Zw m and Zq mU0. Check for 747: Zw = 1909 m = 2.8866 105 Zq = 4.5 105 mU0 = 6.8 107 = Mw Mw m m Zw g sin 0
mg Isin 0 Mw m yy 0

Zw U0 m

w Mw +Zw Mw

Mq +(mU0) Mw
m m
q =


Iyy Iyy

w
Z c
q +
M c

0

3. Set 0 = 0 and remove from the model (it can be derived from q) With these approximations, the longitudinal dynamics reduce to xsp = Aspxsp + Bspe
where e is the elevator input, and
Zw /m U0 w xsp = , Asp = 1 1 Iyy (Mw + Mw Zw /m) Iyy (Mq + Mw U0) q Ze /m Bsp = 1 Iyy (Me + Mw Ze /m)

Fall 2004

16.333 66

2 Characteristic equation for this system: s2 + 2spsps + sp = 0, where the full approximation gives: Zw M q Mw 2spsp = + + U0 m Iyy Iyy Z w M q U0 M w 2 sp = Iyy mIyy

Given approximate magnitude of the derivatives for a typical aircraft, can develop a coarse approximate:
Mq Mq 1 sp
2
U0Mw Iyy 2spsp
Iyy

U0 Mw 2 sp Iyy sp U0Mw Iyy

Numerical values for 747 Frequency Damping rad/sec Full model 0.962 0.387 0.963 0.385 Full Approximate Coarse Approximate 0.906 0.187 Both approximations give the frequency well, but full approximation gives a much better damping estimate Approximations showed that short period mode frequency is deter mined by Mw measure of the aerodynamic stiness in pitch. Sign of Mw negative if cg sucient far forward changes sign (mode goes unstable) when cg at the stick xed neutral point. Follows from discussion of CM (see 211)

Fall 2004

16.333 67

For the Phugoid approximation, start again with:



Xu Xw 0 g cos 0 m m u Zq +mU0 mg sin 0 Zu Zw w mZw
mZw mZw mZ = [Mu+Zu ] [Mw +Zw ] [Mq +(Zq +mU0)] mg sinw
q
Iyy0
Iyy Iyy Iyy 0 0 1 0

u Xc
w
Z +

q

M c


0

1. Changes to w and q are very small compared to u, so we can Set w 0 and q 0 Set 0 = 0


Xu Xw 0 g c m m u Zq +mU0 u Xc
Zw Zu 0
w
Z mZw mZw 0
mZw +
= [Mu+Zu] [Mw +Zw ] [Mq +(Zq +mU0)]
q

M c

0




0

Iyy Iyy Iyy 0 0 0 1 0 2. Use what is left of the Zequation to show that with these ap proximations (elevator inputs) Ze Zq +mU0 Zw Zu

mZw mZw mZw w
mZw
u
=



e
[Mu +Zu ] q [Mq +(Zq +mU0)] [Me +Ze ] [Mw +Zw ]
Iyy Iyy Iyy Iyy

3. Use (Zw m so Mw ) and (Zq mU0) so that: m



Zw
mU0 w


Mw + Zw Mw [Mq + U0Mw ] q m Ze Zu
u
=
e
Mw Mw Me + Ze m Mu + Zu m

Fall 2004

16.333 68

4. Solve to show that




mU0Me Ze Mq mU0Mu ZuMq


Zw Mq mU0Mw
w
u +
Zw Mq mU0Mw
=


Ze Mw Zw Me ZuMw Zw Mu

q
Zw Mq mU0Mw Zw Mq mU0Mw

5. Substitute into the reduced equations to get full approximation: mU0 Mu Zu Mq Xw Xu



g

m + m
Zw Mq mU0 Mw u u
=


Zu Mw Zw Mu 0 Zw Mq mU0 Mw


Xe Xw mU0 Me Ze Mq + m Zw Mq mU0Mw m +

Ze Mw Zw Me Zw Mq mU0 Mw

6. Still a bit complicated. Typically get that |MuZw | |Mw Zu| (1.4:4) |Mw U0m| |Mq Zw | (1:0.13) |MuXw /Mw | Xu small

7. With these approximations, the longitudinal dynamics reduce to the coarse approximation xph = Aphxph + Bphe where e is the elevator input.

Fall 2004

16.333 69

And

Xu

m g u xph = Aph =
Zu
0 mU0 Xw Xe Mw Me m Bph =
Z + Zw M
e e
Mw mU0

8. Which gives 2phph = Xu/m gZu 2 ph = mU0

Numerical values for 747 Frequency Damping rad/sec Full model 0.0673 0.0489 Full Approximate 0.0670 0.0419 Coarse Approximate 0.0611 0.0561

Fall 2004

16.333 610

Further insights: recall that U0 Z U0 L = (CLu + 2CL0 ) QS u 0 QS u 0 M2 CL 2CL0 2CL0 = 1 M2 0 so Z UoS 2mg Zu = (2CL0 ) = u 0 2 U0 Then ph gZu = = mU0 g = 2 U0 mg 2 2 mU0

which is exactly what Lanchesters approximation gave Note that Xu and


2 2mg = Uo SCL0

g 2 U0

X u

=
0

UoS 2

(2CD0 ) = UoSCD0

so ph = XuU0 Xu = 2mph 2 2mg 2 1 Uo SCD0 = 2 SC 2 Uo L0 1 CD0 = 2 CL0

so the damping ratio of the approximate phugoid mode is inversely proportional to the lift to drag ratio.

Fall 2004

10
3

Transfer function from elevator to flight variables 10


4

10 10 |G |

de

10
2

|Gude|

10 10
0 1

10 10
1

0 1

10 2 10 10
0

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10 10
2 1

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

0 50 100
de

50

50

150 arg G 200 250 300 350

arg Gude

100

150

200

250
1

Freq Comparison from elevator (Phugoid Model) B747 at M=0.8. Blue Full model, Black Full approximate model, Magenta Coarse approximate model

16.333 611

10

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

10

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

Fall 2004

10

Transfer function from elevator to flight variables 10


2

10 |G |

de

10

|G |

de

10

10

10
1

10

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

10 10
2 1

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

300 50 100
de

250

200 arg G
1 0

150 200 250 300 350

arg Gude

150

100

50

Freq Comparison from elevator (Short Period Model) B747 at M=0.8. Blue Full model, Magenta Approx imate model

16.333 612

0 2 10

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

10

10 Freq (rad/sec)

10

Fall 2004

16.333 613

Summary
Approximate longitudinal models are fairly accurate

Indicate that the aircraft responses are mainly determined by these stability derivatives: Property Stability derivative Damping of the short period Mq Frequency of the short period Mw Damping of the Phugoid Xu Frequency of the Phugoid Zu

Fall 2004

16.333 614

Given a change in , expect changes in u as well. These will both impact the lift and drag of the aircraft, requiring that we retrim throttle setting to maintain whatever aspects of the ight condition might have changed (other than the ones we wanted to change). We have: L Lu L u = D Du D But to maintain L = W , want L = 0, so u = L
Lu Giving D = L Du + D
Lu CD = 2CL0 CL D = QSCD eA R L = QSCL QS (4 16) Du = (2CD0 ) U0 QS Lu = (2CL0 ) (4 17) U0 2CD0 CL D = QS + CD 2CL0 /U0 U0 2 2CL0 QS CD0 + CL = CL0 eA R (T0 + T ) (D0 + D) D = L 0 + L L0 2CL0 CL CD0 = R CL0 CL0 eA

tan =

For 747 (Reid 165 and Nelson 416), A = 7.14, so eA 18, R R CL0 = 0.654 CD0 = 0.043, CL = 5.5, for a = 0.0185rad (67) = 0.0006rad. This is the opposite sign to the linear simulation results, but they are both very small numbers.