
 .
.

CS
I
IllllllIl0333485
Langley R e s e a r c h Center
Langley Station, Hampton, Va.
SUMMARY
An analytical study has been conducted to determine the important factors influ
encing the dynamic longitudinal stability characteristics of a typical tiltwing V/STOL
aircraft. Calculations have been made for the initial condition of steady level flight at
wing incidences corresponding to speeds ranging f r o m hovering to conventional forward
flight. The results of the calculations have been compared with qualitative measure
ments of dynamic stability obtained during freeflight t e s t s of a 1/9scale model of the
aircraft.
The results of the investigation indicated that the controlfixed motions of the air
craft without artificial stabilization i n hovering flight would be dominated by an unstable
oscillation similar to that displayed by most helicopters. As the transition to conven
tional forward flight progressed, stability characteristics were encountered i n which
aperiodic divergent modes of motion, as well as unstable oscillations, w e r e present. The
conventionalaircraft shortperiod and phugoid oscillations began to appear at the high
speed end of the transition. In general, the analytical results agreed with the motions
observed during the freeflight model tests. These results also indicated that the unstable
oscillation occurring i n the hovering and lowspeed flight regions can be stabilized by the
addition of a combination of pitchrate and pitchattitude stabilization, but that angleof
attack stability must be increased if the aperiodic divergent modes of motion are to be
made stable.
INTRODUCTION
SYMBOLS
All stability derivatives are presented with respect to the body system of axes
shown in figure 1. Inasmuch as conventional nondimensional coefficients lose their sig
nificance and tend to become infinite as airspeed approaches zero, the stability deriva
tives are presented i n dimensional form. The units used for the physical quantities in
this paper a r e given both in the U.S. Customary Units and i n the International System of
Units (SI). Factors relating the two systems of units are given in reference 5.
2
tail incidence, deg
3
I: I ratio of amplitude of perturbation in pitch angle to perturbation velocity
along X body axis,
scale factor, ~ / Z M
4
Dimensional stability derivatives:
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The initial phase of the study consisted of an analytical determination of the dynamic
longitudinal stability characteristics of a typical tiltwing V/STOL aircraft for level flight
(values of a! and y initially equal to zero) at several values of wing incidence. A large
part of the investigation w a s devoted to arriving at suitable methods of analysis  in par
ticular, to a determination of whether the classical linearized, smallperturbation equa
tions of motion normally used in conventional aircraft stability analysis would adequately
describe the controlfixed motions of a tiltwing vehicle. The validity of linear equations
of motion when applied to tiltwing aircraft might be questionable because (1) large
amplitude controlfixed motions are expected to occur for V/STOL aircraft (see refs. 1
to 3) and (2) aerodynamic nonlinearities have been reported for tiltwing configurations
over part of the transition flight range (see ref. 4). The classical approach is, of course,
the simplest method of analyzing dynamicstability problems. The results of the calcula
tions made with the linear equations of motion w e r e compared with the scaledup results
of the freeflight model tests to determine the validity of the calculations. In conjunction
with the linear analysis, values of the various longitudinal stability derivatives appearing
i n the equations of motion w e r e varied not only to determine which derivatives had signifi
cant effects on dynamic stability and must therefore be known with a reasonable degree of
accuracy, but also to determine which derivatives were so insignificant that they could be
neglected for purposes of analysis.
5
Description of Aircraft
The aircraft used f o r the calculations w a s a fourpropeller, tiltwing V/STOL
transport and is believed to be typical of presentday flapped tiltwing designs. A three
view sketch showing the more important dimensions is presented i n figure 2. The con
figuration employed counterrotating propellers, which resulted i n cancellation of the pro
pulsive gyroscopic effects and, in turn, in uncoupling of the longitudinal and lateral equa
tions of motion. The m a s s and geometric characteristics of the V/STOL transport are
given in table I. The values were obtained by scaling up the corresponding values f o r the
1/9scale model as measured during the freeflight tests of reference 3. Scaling factors
used a r e given in table II. The horizontal and vertical locations of the center of gravity
were assumed to vary with wing incidence angle in the same manner as those for the
freeflight model; the variations a r e presented i n figure 3. The configuration employed
a fullspan flap and an allmovable horizontal tail. These two surfaces were programed
to deflect with wing incidence. The programed variations of the flap deflection and
horizontaltail incidence (identical to those of the freeflight model) are shown in figure 4
and are the same as those used i n reference 4. Unbalanced pitching moments occurring
with this particular programed variation were assumed to be trimmed by an auxiliary
device (the freeflight model w a s trimmed with a jetreaction type of control) with no
resulting effect on the longitudinal stability derivatives.
The results of reference 4 indicate that the tailincidence program used produced
excessive values of tail incidence at the higher transition speeds  that is, large nose
down pitching moments were produced by the horizontal tail. This point should be kept
i n mind inasmuch as the tailincidence program produced negative (statically destabi
lizing) values of the velocity stability derivative Mu. In other words, when the speed of
the model w a s increased from the t r i m flight condition, the pitchingmoment contribution
of the jetreactioncontrol t r i m m e r remained unchanged, but the moment increment due
to the horizontal tail became more negative. The result is that different trimming pro
cedures for tiltwing configurations may lead to completely different values of the longi
tudinal stability derivatives. For example, the velocity stability derivative Mu will
vary at higher speeds, depending upon whether the vehicle is trimmed with the horizontal
tail o r another trimming device such as a tail rotor.
Correlation of the results of the present study with those of similar configurations
(refs. 6 and 7, for example) w a s not attempted because of differences in tailincidence
programs and m a s s and inertial characteristics.
Stability Derivatives
The staticforcetest data of reference 4 (obtained f o r conditions of constant power)
were linearized by measuring representative slopes of the force and moment data plotted
6
as functions of angle of attack and velocity. Slopes were obtained for forward flight for
each wing incidence at the power condition that gave zero net longitudinal force at an
angle of attack of zero (Fx = 0 at CY = OO). The static stability derivatives were then
expressed in t e r m s of the perturbation velocities u and w by the approximate rela
tions AV =: u and U0Aa =: w. The change of variables w a s desirable inasmuch as the
values of the stability derivatives for hovering (where CY is undefined) and for forward
flight then become directly comparable. This procedure w a s not required for estimation
of the derivatives for hovering flight inasmuch as the data presented in reference 4 were
measured as direct functions of u. Values of the stability derivatives representing rate
of change of vertical and horizontal forces with respect to the variables in the equations
of motion were divided by the value of the model mass, whereas derivatives of pitching
moment were divided by the model moment of inertia i n pitch. The dimensional stability
derivatives were then scaled up to fullscale values by multiplying the model values by
the appropriate scaling factors given in table II. Multiplication of model values by the
scaling factors results in no change in dynamic stability  that is, the model and aircraft
(
have the same values for the nondimensional stability characteristics for example,
c1/2 and 5).
Several difficulties arose in the estimation of the stability derivatives. First, the
results of reference 4 did not report data for the dynamic derivatives in hovering flight.
Preliminary calculations indicated that the only dynamic derivative which could signifi
cantly affect the hovering dynamics w a s the dampinginpitch derivative Mq. Unpub
lished forced oscillation t e s t s subsequent to those of reference 4 indicated that the model
had values of Mq equal to zero in hovering flight. The small value of the derivative
w a s also confirmed by the results of dampinginpitch tests made with a similar config
uration, as reported in reference 6. For the foregoing reasons, the dynamic derivatives
for hovering flight were assumed to have values of zero for the aircraft without artificial
stabilization. A second difficulty which arose during the estimation of stability deriva
tives w a s that the vertical damping derivative Zw w a s not measured during the model
force tests. For hovering flight, the value of Zw w a s also assumed to be equal to zero.
This assumption w a s not a critical one for the dynamicstability calculations because the
vertical translatory mode of motion is normally uncoupled from an unstable oscillation
involving horizontal translation and pitching motion which dominates the controlfixed
motions in hovering flight (see refs. 1 to 3). Information regarding height control of
hovering VTOL aircraft (where the value of Zw may be relatively important) can be
found in references 8 and 9. A third difficulty arose when the staticforcetest data of
reference 4 showed significant nonlinear variations of pitching moment with angle of
attack for a wing incidence of 25O. (The staticforcetest data for this condition are pre
( 1
sented in fig. 5 f o r reference.) For the t r i m condition LO q,S = 7.0), the model w a s
statically stable with respect to angle of attack (negative values of Md for small negative
7
angles of attack but w a s unstable (positive values 01 M&) for small positive angles of
attack. It might be expected that this nonlinearity would preclude the valid usage of linear
equations for that particular wing incidence. In o r d e r to evaluate the validity of the linear
equations, slopes were measured at both small values of positive and negative angles of
attack. Two values of angleofattack stability were therefore obtained for iw= 250. A
final difficulty w a s that the nature of the forced oscillation tests of reference 4 led to
dynamicstability parameters that were combinations of stability derivatives due to pitch
rate (q) and rate of change of angle of attack (br). For purposes of the calculations, the
measured parameters were assumed to be due entirely to pitch rate (for example, the
measured parameter Mq + M& was used as Mq).
The stability derivatives as determined by the foregoing methods and used in the
calculations are presented i n figure 6 and i n table III.
parameter indicate modes of motion containing little change in angle of attack (for example,
the conventionalaircraft phugoid oscillation). Large values indicate large variations in
angle of attack (similar to the conventionalaircraft shortperiod oscillation).
In conjunction with the linear analysis, the rootlocus technique of reference 10
w a s used to illustrate graphically the variation of the roots of the characteristic equation
with changes i n the various stability derivatives. This method presents the path, o r locus,
8
, ~~ .... . . . . . .. , , . .. .  . .. _.. ..
of the solutions on the complex plane as the value of an individual stability derivative is
varied. (Additional information on the application of the method can be found in ref. 11.)
Presented in figure 8 are the features of the complex plane as applied to dynamic sys
tems. For stability, all roots of the characteristic equation must have negative real
parts (a negative). This requirement means that f o r stability all roots must be located
in the left half of the complex plane shown in figure 8. The imaginary axis (at cr = 0) is
therefore a line of neutral dynamic stability f o r both r e a l and complex roots. Lines
representing constant values of time to halve (or double) amplitude a r e parallel to the
imaginary axis (a = Constant). Lines representing constant values of damped period are
parallel to the r e a l axis ( j w = Constant). Radial lines emanating from the origin repre
sent constant values of damping ratio o r cycles to halve (or double) amplitude
( w / o = Constant). Circles with centers at the origin represent lines of constant undamped
I
(t1/2 = 0.8 sec). The oscillation is unstable in t e r m s of time required to double ampli
tude (t2 = 2.4 sec) with a moderately long period (P = 9.7 sec). These modes of motion
are similar to those displayed by most helicopters i n hovering flight, although the oscil
lation is more unstable f o r the tiltwing aircraft. For example, the basic helicopter used
i n the investigation of reference 1 2 also possessed an aperiodic mode (ti12 = 0.31 sec)
and an unstable oscillation (P = 8.9 sec, t 2 = 6.6 s e c ) in hovering flight. The point to be
inferred is that dynamic instability can be tolerated for tiltwing aircraft in hovering
flight if they are operated in the same manner as helicopters. The fact that complete
dynamic stability is not required f o r satisfactory handling qualities is also demonstrated
by conventional aircraft with unstable phugoid o r s p i r a l modes of motion.
Transition flight. The data of table IV show that as the wing incidence is reduced
from 90 to 65O, the most noticeable change from the stability characteristics of hovering
flight is the appearance of an unstable aperiodic mode of motion. Analysis revealed that
this instability of the vehicle was a result of angleofattack instability positive values
(
of Mw) as indicated by the data of figure 6(a). The data of table IV also show that as
the wing incidence was reduced from 90 to 65O, the unstable oscillation increased in
period (from P = 9.68 s e c to P = 14.11 sec) and w a s l e s s unstable in t e r m s of time
required to double amplitude (t2 = 4.29 sec). The stable aperiodic mode for iw = 65'
had about the same value of t1/2 as for hovering flight. The data of table IV also indi
As the transition progresses and the wing incidence is reduced to 50, the l a r g e r
value of angleofattack instability (see fig. 6(a)) r e s u l t s i n greater instability of the
unstable aperiodic mode. The oscillation is still unstable and continues to increase both ,
in period (P = 19.40 sec) and in time required to double amplitude (t2 = 16.50 sec). The
general nature of the aperiodic and oscillatory modes f o r iw = 50 is apparent i n that
the aperiodic modes contain larger changes in angle of attack and pitch angle than does
the oscillatory mode.
Further reduction i n wing incidence to 25O r e s u l t s in the aerodynamic nonlinearities
previously discussed. The results of calculations from the linearized values of the static
data based on positive and negative angleof attack disturbances indicate that the motion
initiated by positive angle of attack disturbances would be dominated by an aperiodic
divergence (primarily i n angle of attack and pitch angle) caused by the Static instability
with respect to angle of attack. For negative angleofattack disturbances, on the other
hand, two oscillatory modes similar to the classical phugoid and shortperiod oscillations
are present. The results of the linearized calculations for negative angleof attack dis
turbances are meaningless i n that, as the aircraft angle of attack returns to the t r i m
10
I
condition and overshoots, the static instability will prevail  that is, the aircraft w i l l
always diverge in a noseup direction. The results of additional calculations made by
using automaticcomputing equipment and the basic nonlinear data of figure 5 a r e pre
sented in figure 10. These data a r e time histories of the motions resulting from initial
angleofattack disturbances of 5O and 5O. The motions for positive angleof attack
disturbances show simply that the model diverges. For negative angleof attack dis
turbances, the vehicle initially tends to return to the t r i m condition; but, as the angle of
attack overshoots, the model diverges as it did for the positive disturbance. The results
for iw = 25O indicate, that the classical linearized equations of motion are not applicable
to some of the normal flight conditions of tiltwing aircraft.
For the lowest value of wing incidence of this investigation (iw= loo), the results
show a highly damped relatively short period oscillation, a stable aperiodic mode, and an
unstable aperiodic mode. The amplitude ratios presented i n table IV for iw = loo indi
cate that the oscillation primarily involved changes i n angle of attack and pitch angle
values of and I:\) whereas the aperiodic modes primarily involved large
and l:).
(
changes in forward speed relatively small values of The instability of
one of the aperiodic modes w a s found to be a result of static instability of the aircraft.
In this connection, it should be pointed out that the static stability of a V/STOL aircraft
is dependent on factors other than angleofattack stability. For this particular wing
incidence, the vehicle w a s statically stable with respect to angle of attack (see fig. 6(a))
but the tailincidence program led to negative (destabilizing) values of the velocity sta
bility derivative MU. An inspection of the coefficient E of the quartic characteristic
equation i n appendix A reveals that both angleofattack stability (Mw) and velocity sta
bility (Mu) can determine the static stability of the aircraft. (A negative sign of the coef
ficient E indicates static instability.) For iw = loo, the unstable value of velocity sta
bility w a s large enough to cause static instability of the aircraft. These results a r e
believed to be further substantiated by the freeflight t e s t s of a tiltwing model as
reported i n reference 2. The model used for the investigation of reference 2 also had
excessive values of tail incidence at high transition speeds. In spite of the fact that force
t e s t s showed the model to have static stability with respect to angle of attack, control
fixed motions were observed to be aperiodic divergences. Such motions might, of course,
be taken to be outoftrim flight conditions. Although no measurements were made of the
velocity stability derivative, it is believed that a condition existed similar to that for the
present configuration  that is, instability of the model due to excessive values of tail
incidence.
The root locations of the equations of motion for transition flight (except for the
nonlinear condition of iw= 250) are plotted on the complex plane in figure 11. The
11
values of the mode ratios and I e I given in table IV, together with the data of fig
IG I
u r e 11, reveal that as the wing incidence is progressively reduced from 90, the complex
roots describing the unstable oscillation of hovering flight move to the left (less unstable)
and closer to the origin (increase i n period). Then, these complex roots separate into
two real roots defining one stable and one unstable aperiodic mode. The negative r e a l
root of hovering flight (iw= 90) has approximately the same value at the low transition
speeds (iw = 650 and 50) but combines with the other (unstable) r e a l root to form the
damped shortperiod oscillation at iw = 100.
The roots describing the dynamic stability of the present vehicle a r e seen to follow
a distinct path as the transition to forward flight progresses (fig. 11). The real aperiodic
modes of hovering flight become the conventionalaircraft shortperiod oscillation of
forward flight whereas the unstable oscillation of hovering flight becomes the phugoid
oscillation of forward flight; although, f o r this configuration, the phugoid oscillation is
broken down into two r e a l roots because of static instability with respect to speed. Addi
tional calculations for iw= loo with a value of Mu = 0 show that a phugoid oscillation
results with little change in the shortperiod mode. In a subsequent section of this paper,
the path of the roots is shown t o depend heavily on the relative values of MW and Mu.
For example, the hovering flight oscillation became the shortperiod oscillation in for
ward flight during flight tests of an experimental tiltwing aircraft (see ref. 13).
12
flight (P = 9.68 sec, t2 = 2.38 sec) agree well with the scaledup model values
(P = 10.4 sec, t2 = 2.5 sec). As the transition to forward flight progressed and the wing
incidence w a s reduced to 65O, the oscillation became longer in period (P = 12.4 s e c for
scaledup model value and 14.11 s e c for calculated value) than that for hovering flight.
Because of the unstable oscillation, the aperiodic divergence could not be confirmed, but
the model certainly seemed to be simply diverging i n a nosedown sense at the end of the
record. A s wing incidence was further reduced to 250, an unusually long period ffoscilla
tion" was noted for an initially nosedown motion. This flight condition emphasizes the
fact that although the time histories of figure 13 are informative, any inspection of limited
samples of the model motions under certain circumstances may lead to erroneous con
clusions regarding the dynamic stability of freeflight models. This is particularly true
for conditions involving very nonlinear and unsymmetrical aerodynamic characteristics.
The previously discussed aerodynamic nonlinearity for iw = 25O w a s not known at the
time the freeflight t e s t s w e r e conducted; as a result, the time history is based on nose
down motion. Additional examination of motion pictures taken during the flights revealed
that the model would not oscillate when disturbed in a noseup sense but would pitch up,
as indicated i n figure 10. These motions were regarded as a result of outoftrim condi
tions during the freeflight tests. At the lowest wing incidence of the investigation (loo),
the model motions observed during the freeflight t e s t s were a shortperiod oscillation
i n angle of attack and pitch angle and a lightly damped phugoid oscillation o r aperiodic
divergence in displacement.
. The fact that the results of the calculations a r e in fairly good agreement with the
motions observed during the freeflight t e s t s indicates that linearized stability calcula
tions can be applied to tiltwing aircraft for most flight conditions. More sophisticated
timeconsuming means of analysis may be required f o r certain flight conditions in which
nonlinear and unsymmetrical aerodynamic characteristics prevail.
Derivative Figure
xu .......... 17 23 29
z, . . . . . . . . . . 18 24 30
zw . . . . . . . . . . 19 25 31
Mu . . . . . . . . . . 20 26 32
Mw . . . . . . . . . . 21 27 33
Mq and M e . . . . 22 28 34
Hovering flight. The locations of the roots presented i n figure 14 for the various
values of Mu indicate that the roots of the characteristic equation for hovering flight
a r e relatively sensitive to changes i n velocity stability. Increases in Mu lead to a
more unstable oscillation with a corresponding decrease in period. It is interesting to
note that the oscillation becomes more unstable in t e r m s of time required to double ampli
tude (that is, o becomes more positive) but the instability remains about constant i n
t e r m s of number of cycles required to double amplitude (o/w Constant). The locations
of the roots presented i n figure 15 show that although negative increases in Xu tend to
make the modes of motion l e s s unstable, the roots are relatively insensitive to changes in
this derivative. Figure 16 shows the location of the roots representing the oscillation for
pitchrate stabilization (Me = 0, Mq = 2 per radsec), pitchattitude stabilization
(M8 = 1 per r a d  s e d , Mq = 0), and various ratios of pitchattitude stabilization to pitch
rate stabilization. With the audition of pitchrate stabilization only (M8/Mq = 0), the
unstable oscillation can be made stable, but the vehicle response to control inputs w i l l be
sluggish. For the case of artificial stabilization i n attitude alone (Mo/Mq = 00)) the f r e 
quency of the oscillation is increased with little change in the damping characteristics.
The most effective means of stabilizing the unstable oscillation is through use of artificial
stabilization in the form of a combination of pitchrate (9) stabilization and pitchattitude
(8) stabilization.
14
The unstable oscillation of hovering flight has not been of concern to pilots of
V/STOL aircraft when flying in weather conditions where visual motion cues a r e avail
able inasmuch as the pilot w i l l add the rate and attitude stabilization necessary to sta
bilize the aircraft. Some difficulties, however, may a r i s e during hovering flight when
using instrument references only. Significant improvements in handling qualities were
obtained by use of artificial stabilization during the flight t e s t s of reference 7. In any
event, at least artificial pitchrate stabilization would probably be required for satisfac
tory handling qualities for this particular configuration.
Transition flight. The rootlocus plots presented in figures 17 to 22 for iw = 65O
show that the stability of the oscillatory mode is very sensitive to changes i n Mu, Mq,
and M e and relatively insensitive to changes in Xu and Zu. The unstable oscillation
could be made stable by the addition of artificial stabilization in Mq or Me. The
unstable aperiodic mode is most sensitive to changes in the stability derivatives Zw and
Mw because of the relatively large angleofattack content i n that mode for this low
speed transition flight region (see table IV).
The data presented i n figures 23 to 28 for iw = 50 indicate that the aircraft
dynamic stability characteristics a r e sensitive to changes in all the stability derivatives
except Xu and Zw. The unstable oscillation is again stabilized by the addition of
pitchattitude or pitchrate stabilization. The only stability derivative for which changes
can stabilize the aperiodic divergence without destabilizing the oscillatory mode is Mw
(fig. 27).
For iw = 100, the rootlocus plots shown in figures 29 to 34 indicate that the sta
bility derivatives a r e beginning to assume the relative importance normally associated
with conventional aircraft stability derivatives. For example, negative increases in Z,
tend to add damping to the shortperiod mode (fig. 31), negative increases in Mw tend
to increase the frequency of the shortperiod oscillation (fig. 33), and negative increases
in damping in pitch (Mq) increase the damping of the shortperiod mode with little effect
on the phugoid roots (fig. 34). The unstable aperiodic mode of the basic configuration
may be stabilized by a negative increase in Zu (fig. 30), a reduction in the negative
value of Zw (fig. 31), a reduction i n the negative value of Mu (fig. 32), o r a negative
increase i n Mw (fig. 33).
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
15
the linearized equations may not be applicable to the tiltwing aircraft for some flight
conditions in which aerodynamic nonlinearities are present.
2. The controlfixed longitudinal motions of the tiltwing aircraft without artificial
stabilization i n hovering flight were dominated by an unstable oscillation similar to that
displayed by most helicopters. As the transition to conventional forward flight pro
gressed, stability characteristics were encountered i n which aperiodic divergent modes
of motion, as well as unstable oscillations, were present. The conventionalaircraft
shortperiod and phugoid oscillations began to appear at the highspeed end of the
transition.
3. The unstable oscillation occurring in the hovering and lowspeed flight regions
can be stabilized by the addition of a combination of pitchrate and pitchattitude stabili
zation, but angleofattack stability must be increased if the aperiodic divergences a r e
to be made stable.
16
APPENDIX A
EQUATIONS O F MOTION
Pitching moment:
As4 +B + C S +~ DS + E = 0
s ~
where
A = l
B = MG(Zq  Uo)  Mq  x,  z w
C = M&J0Xu + ZqXu  XgZu)  MW(Uo+ Zq) + XU(Zw + Mq)  %MU  M e + MqZw  ZuXw
The damping and period of a mode of motion, in seconds, a r e given by the equa
tions t1/2 = 
0'693 and
U
p =
2n respectively, where
W'
u and w are the r e a l and
imaginary parts of the root of the characteristic equation. Additional stability character
istics may be obtained by the following relations:
=0
on
17
APPENDIX B
As a consequence of the uncoupling of the vertical degree of freedom, one root (equal in
value to )Z
, is immediately known. The remaining cubic describes the oscillation
involving the foreandaft and pitch degrees of freedom.
18
I
\
REFERENCES
TN D45, 1960.
2. Newsom, William A., Jr.: Flight Investigation of the Longitudinal Stability and Control
Characteristics of a FourPropeller TiltWing VTOL Model With a Programed
Flap. NASA TN D1390, 1962.
3. Newsom, William A.; and Kirby, Robert H.: Flight Investigation of Stability and Con
t r o l Characteristics of a 1/9Scale Model of a FourPropeller TiltWing V/STOL
Transport. NASA TN D2443, 1964.
4. Chambers,'Joseph R.; and Grafton, Sue B.: Static and Dynamic Longitudinal Stability
Derivatives of a Powered 1/9Scale Model of a TiltWing V/STOL Transport.
NASA TN D3591, 1966.
5. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units  Physical Constants and Conver
sion Factors. NASA SP7012, 1964.
6. Curtiss, H. C., Jr.; Putman, W. F.; and Lebacqz, J. V.: An Experimental Investiga
tion of the Longitudinal Dynamic Stability Characteristics of a Four Propeller Tilt
Wing VTOL Model at High Wing Incidences. Rept. No. 774 (Contract
DA 44177AMC8(T)), Dept. Aerospace Mech. Sci., Princeton Univ., Apr. 1966.
7. Ransome, Robin K.; and Jones, Gay E.: XC142A V/STOL Transport TriService
Limited Category I Evaluation. FTCTR6527, U.S. Air Force, Jan. 1966.
(Available from DDC as AD 477 084.)
8. Garren, John F., Jr.; and Assadourian, Arthur: VTOL HeightControl Requirements
In Hovering as Determined From Motion Simulator Study. NASA TN D1488, 1962.
9. Gerdes, Ronald M. : A Piloted Motion Simulator Investigation of VTOL HeightControl
Requirements. NASA TN D2451, 1964.
10. Evans, Walter R.: ControlSystem Dynamics. McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., New York,
1954.
11. Seckel, Edward: Stability and Control of Airplanes and Helicopters. Academic Press,
Inc., c. 1964.
12. Seckel, E.; Traybar, J. J.; ad Miller, G. E.: Longitudinal Handling Qualities f o r
Hovering. Rept. No. 594 (Contract DA 44177TC524), Dept. Aeron. Eng.,
Princeton Univ., Dec. 1961.
13. Pegg, Robert J.: Summary of FlightTest Results of the VZ2 TiltWing Aircraft.
NASA TN D989, 1962.
19
TABLE 1. MASS AND GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS
O F THE V/STOL TRANSPORT
I
TABLE I. MASS AND GEOMETFUC CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE V/STOL TRANSPORT .Concluded
Vertical tail:
Area. ft2 (m2) ............................... 130.0 (12.1)
Span. f t (m) ................................ 15.6 (4.8)
Aspect ratio .................................... 1.87
Airfoil section:
Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 0018
Tip .................................... NACA0012
Tip chord. f t (m) .............................. 3.3 (1.0)
Root chord. f t (m) ............................. 13.3 (4.1)
Taper ratio...................................... 0.25
Sweepback of quarter chord. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Rudder :
Tip chord. f t (m) ............................... 1.1 (0.3)
Root chord. f t (m) ............................. 3.8 (1.2)
Tail length. center of gravity to 0.25 mean aerodynamic chord. f t (m) . . . 2 1.4 (6.5)
Horizontal tail:
Area. f t 2 (m2) ............................... 170.9 (15.9)
Aspect ratio ..................................... 5.68
Airfoil section:
Root .................................... NACA 0015
Tip .................................... NACA0012
...............................
Tip chord. f t (m) 3.5 (1.1)
Root chord. f t (m) .............................. 7.0 (2.1)
Span. ft (m) ................................. 31.14 (9.5)
Taper ratio ..................................... 0.50
Sweepback of quarter chord. deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.50
Mean aerodynamic chord. f t (m) ....................... 5.5 (1.7)
Tail length. center of gravity to 0.25 mean aerodynamic chord. f t (m) . . . 24.8 (7.6)
Propellers:
Main:
Number of blades .................................. 4
Diameter. f t (m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 (4.7)
Tail:
Number of blades .................................. 3
Diameter. f t (m).............................. 8.0 (2.4)
Moment arm. wing pivot to rotor center. f t (m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 (9.8)
22
TABLE II. SCALING FACTORS
To scale
..............................
Linear acceleration
by I
Length .....................................
Area ......................................
Mass ......................................
Force .....................................
Moment ....................................
..............................
Moment of inertia
................................
Linear velocity
Time ......................................
...............................
Angular velocity
Angular acceleration .............................
Stability derivatives
To scale Multiply by
M, ....................................... A1
xu, zu, x,, z, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x1/2
Mu, Mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x3/2
2cq, z q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A m
Mq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A'V2
Mo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1
23

TABLE Y3I. STABILITY DERIVATIVES
XU9 XW 9 xs,
per sec per sec ft/secrad
ZU? ZW9 zq,
per sec per sec ft/secrad
MU,
per ftsec
MW ,
per ftsec
%,
per radsec
0.2855 0 0 0 0 0 0.0137 0 0
43.5 .1848 0 1.5426 .1549 0 3.6420 .0061 .0027 .1940
50 51.9 .1218 .1420 2.7290 .1759 .0355 4.3470 .0046 .0073 .2235
25
(Nose up) 108i3 .1058 .1531 .2031 .1905 .0681 6.6030 .0012 .0037 .3553
~ 25
(Nose down) 108.3 .lo58 .1531 .2031 .1905 .0681 6.6030 .0012 .0011 .3553
10 1 165.6 .1189 .0445 .4548 .2463 .4230 1.7190 .0027 .0032 .7213
qT
(b) SI Units
T
ZU, MU,
m/secrad per sec per sec m/secrad per msec per msec per radsec
90 0 0.2855 0 0 0 0 0 0.0449
65 13.3 .1848 0 .4702 .1549 0 1.1101 .0200 ,0089 .1940
50 15.8 .1218 .1420 .8318 .1759 .0355 1.3250 .0151 ,0240 .2235
25 33.0 .lo58 .1531 .0619 .1905 .0681 2.0126 .0039 .0121 .3553
(Nose up)
25 33.0 .lo58 .1531 .0619 .1905 .0681 2.0126 .0039 .0036 .3553
(Nose down)
1 10 1 50.5 .1189 .0445 .1386 .2463 .4230 .5240  .0089 .0105 .7213
TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BASIC AIRCRAFT
Mode
Oscillatory
Aperiodic 0
T 0.29 50.65
0
tl/2,
(*I
2.38
00
p,
sec
c1/2
(*I
wn
25
iW \
I
Figure 1. The body system of axes.
+ li I
 1 67.50
(20.571
4
Figure 2. Threeview drawing of the tiltwing transport. Dimensions are given in feet and parenthetically in meters.
80 60 40 20 0
Wing incidence, deg
Figure 3. Variation of the horizontal and vertical centerofgravity locations with wing incidence.
28
60
T
I
I
I
I
'c3
50
1
I
I
f1
.
t
L
40
 I
CCI
IC..
I=
0
.
N
L 30
1I
0 I
J=
L
1
1
0 I
I=
.
0
IC..
u
a,
P
20
it irUizontaI tail =/=j
ir

CCI
L 10
1
i
1
I
0
1

100 80 60 20 0
Wing incidence, deg
Figure 4. Variation of flap deflection and horizontaltail incidence with wing incidence.
29
1.6
1.2
+Z .8
b
.4
0 .4
.2
0 
FX
b
.2
0 .4
.04
.08
.12
.16
.20
.24
.28
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
a, deg
Figure 5. Variation of forces and moments with angle of attack of the UPscale model. iw = Bo;i t = 23'. (Figure from ref. 4.)
30
.02  .006

.003

MU 1
per msec
t
. .
per*sec O .__I__
.01 .003
c P\ Aa=5O (Nose u p 1 7
.004
.001
Mrt
per ftsec 0 0 Mw'
per msec
.004 I
.001
.8 90I
\

I I. I L. I I L I I I l l ! I I
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
iwdeg
31
2"'
persec .2 

.3 
1.0
m
radsec
radsec
2.0
8'
90
I I
80
' ' ' ' '
70 60
I
50
I
J . J . I
40 30
I I
20
I I
10
iw, deg
32
0
.1
per sec .2
.3
.2
xw' .1
per sec
xq *
m
1 radsec
X
9'
ft 2
radsec
3
90 70 60 50 40 30 10
iw deg
33
Figure 7. Variation of trim velocity with wing incidence angle. W/S = 97.2 Ib/ft2 (46% N/m2).
Lines of constant Imaginary axis
time to halve amplitude
+
\
Lines of constant
\I t iw
damping ratio
Lines of constant
damped period
Lines of constant I,
natural frequency
 
Real axis
+
(T
35
Roots desc r i bi nq
,8 /r unstable oscillation
Roof describing
pitch and horizontal
I I I
.8
1.2
Figure 9. Location of the roots on the complex plane for hovering flight.
36
30
20
10
(a) Au =5O.
0
0
c
.
(CI
t
10 1 I 1 L I I. I I I I J
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time, sec
Figure 10. Calculated time histories of motions at i, = Bo showing dependence d dynamic characteristics on initial disturbance.
37
0 90
[1 65
0 50
IO (Basic configuration)
b IO (Mu =O)
 b0 4

0
 .8

 1.2
Figure 11. Effect of wing incidence on the root locations on the complex plane. Level flight; a = 8.
38
Figure 12. Photograph of the I ')scale model in free flight. 1. 638475
100
100
100
Hover
100
iw = 65'
40
20
20
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time, sec
Figure 13. Controlfixed longitudinal motions of the tiltwing aircraft based on scaledup results of the V9scale model tests.
40
MU
per ftsec per msec
0 0.0137 0.0449 (Basic configuration)
0 0.0069 0.0225
0 0.0274 0.0898
1  1 1 V I I I I I I I I I I I
1.6 1.2 .8 .4 .4 .8 1.2 1.6
(r
1.2 i
1.6
41
per sec
o 0.2855 (Basic configuration)
0.1428
0 0.5710
.8
I 1  1 I I I . I I I I I I I I
1.6 1.2 .8 .4 .4 .8 1.2 1.6
0
1.2
42
Me1 Mq'
per radsec2 per radsec
0 0.0 0.0 (Basic unaugmented configuration)
0 0.0 2.0 (Pitchrate stabilization)
0 1.0 0.0 (Pitchattitude stabilization)
A 2.0 2.0
b 4.0 2.0
1
2.0
I 2.0
1 2.4
Figure 16. Root locus for M e and Mq. Hovering flight. (Unit for Me/Mq is per sec.)
43
X
U'
per sec
0 0. 1848 Basic configuration)
0 0.0924
O 0.3696
 .2
I I I I
.2 .4 .6
U
 .2
UW'
0 0.3098
F
I

. .
.2
I I
.6
Figure 18. Root locus for Zu. iw = 65O.
I
.6 jw
per sec
o 0.0 (Basic configuration)
0.1667
0 0.3334
I I I I I I ' O L 011 11 ,1
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 .2 .4 .6
cr
.2
.6
Figure 19. Root locus for Zw iw= 65O.
M
f
U'
I_ .2
L .8
Figure 20. Root locus for Mu. iw= .'56
0 0.0027
0 0.0
Mw'
per ftsec per msec
0.0089(Basic configuration)
0.0
:\

 .4

1
 .2

I I I I < I I I I I I
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 
.2 .4 .6
U
 .2

48
Me*
per radsec2 per radsec
0 0.0 0.1940 (Basic configuration)
0 0.0 2. oo00 (Pitchrate stabilization)
0 1.0 0.1940 (Pitchattitude stabilization)
I A I I I om>l I I I I
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 .2 .4 .6
\
tt .2
0
1.2
49
X
U'
per sec
0 0.3654 (Basic configuration)
0 0.1827
. 2
O 0.7308 c
II @
I I I I I I I I I J
I I
1.0 .8 . .6 .4 .2  .2 .4 .6
(r
.4 .6
U
per sec
0 0.0355 (Basic configuration)
U 0.1777
0 0.7100 I
I I I I
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2
.6
I
 .2

4 I I I I I I I AI I A =I I
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 
.2 .4 .6
(T
 .2
53
Mw
per ftsec per msec
o 0.0073 0.0240 (Basic configuration)
0 0.0 0.0
54

0 1.0 0.2235 (Pitch attitude stabi 1 izat ion)
 .4
 .2

L A C
1.0 .
'8
0

1
 7
.6 .4
I I
.2
 L I
.2
1 J
.4
1 1
.6
 D
 .2
55
xu
per sec
0 0. 1189 (Basic configuration)
0 0.0595
0 0.2378
I I I 1 . L_ .I
1 i__._
56

 8 jw
 .6
zU, 
per sec
 .4
o 0.2463 (Basic configuration)
0 0.1231 
0 0.4926
 .4

 .6

 .8
Figure 30. Root locus for Z,. iw = loo.
57
 3 jw

.6
zw 
per sec
.4
o 0.4230 (Basic configuration)
0.2115 
. 4

. 6

\
58
MU,
per ftsec per msec
0 0.0027 0.3089 (Basic configuration)
0.0014 0.0045
0 0.0054 0.0178
L. 1 
1.0 .2 .4 .6
U
59

per ftsec per msec
o 0.0032 0.0105(Basic configuration)
 .2
0.0016 0.0053
0 0.0064 0.'0210 
. . I I I 4
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2

.2 .4 .6
u
 .2

 .4

CJ
 .6

c>
 .8

 1.0

 1.2
Figure 33. Root locus for Mw i, = 100.
60

 1.2

 1.0

 .8
 .6

 .4
per radsec2 per radsec
0 0.0 0.7213 (Basic configuration)
0 0.0 1.4426 (Pitchrate stabilization)
0 1.0 0.7213 (Pitchattitude stabilization)
I l l I I I I L I I 10c n l
11.4
Figure 34. Root locus for M, and Mq. iw = 100.
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
, / . 1 1 ? . (,'( I i
: ;
/ .
...: ,/'\,
*
,",
.
e \
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.