Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:24:22.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fixed-wing approach techniques for complex environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

P. R. Thomas ,
S. Bullock ,
U. Bhandari  and
T. S. Richardson
P. R. Thomas
Affiliation:
p.thomas@bristol.ac.uk
S. Bullock
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
U. Bhandari
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
T. S. Richardson
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The landing approach for fixed-wing small unmanned air vehicles (SUAVs) in complex environments such as urban canyons, wooded areas, or any other obscured terrain is challenging due to the limited distance available for conventional glide slope descents. Alternative approach methods, such as deep stall and spin techniques, are beneficial for such environments but are less conventional and would benefit from further qualitative and quantitative understanding to improve their implementation. Flight tests of such techniques, with a representative remotely piloted vehicle, have been carried out for this purpose and the results are presented in this paper. Trajectories and flight data for a range of approach techniques are presented and conclusions are drawn as to the potential benefits and issues of using such techniques for SUAV landings. In particular, the stability of the vehicle on entry to a deep stall was noticeably improved through the use of symmetric inboard flaps (crow brakes). Spiral descent profiles investigated, including spin descents, produced faster descent rates and further reduced landing space requirements. However, sufficient control authority was maintainable in a spiral stall descent, whereas it was compromised in a full spin.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1218 , August 2015 , pp. 999 - 1016
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

References

1.Civil Aviation Authority Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations, CAP 393, August 2012.Google Scholar
2.Taniguchi, H., Analysis of Deepstall Landing for UAV, in International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 14-19 September 2008.Google Scholar
3.Pointner, W., Kotsis, G., Langthaler, P. and Naderhirn, M., Using Formal Methods to Verify Safe Deep Stall Landing of a MAV, in IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, 16-20 October 2011.Google Scholar
4.Taylor, R.T. and Ray, E.J.. Deep-Stall Aerodynamic Characteristics of T-Tail Aircraft, in NASA Conference on Aircraft Operating Problems, Langley Research Center, Virginia, USA, May 1965.Google Scholar
5.Lina, L.J. and Moul, M.T.. A Simulator Study of T-Tail Aircraft in Deep Stall Conditions, in AIAA/RAeS/JSASS, Aircraft Design and Technology Meeting, Los Angeles, California, USA, November 1965.Google Scholar
6.White, M.D. and Cooper, G.R., Simulator Studies of the Deep Stall, in NASA Conference on Aircraft Operating Problems, Langley Research Center, Virginia, USA, May 1965.Google Scholar
7.williAms, L.J., Johnson, J.L. Jr. and Yip, L.P., Some Aerodynamic Considerations for Advanced Aircraft Configurations, in AIAA 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Evangelou, L.d., Self, A.W., Allen, J.E. and Lo, S.. Trimmed deep stall on the F-16 Flighting Falcon, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1054), pp 679–683.Google Scholar
9.Sim, A.G., Flight Characteristics of a Manned, Low-Speed, Controlled Deep Stall Vehicle, NASA TM 8 6041, August 1984.Google Scholar
10.Crowther, W.J.. Perched Landing and Takeoff for Fixed Wing UAVs, in Symposium on Unmanned Vehicles for Aerial, Ground and Naval Military Operations, Ankara, Turkey, 2000.Google Scholar
11.Nagendran, A., Crowther, W.J. and Richardson, R.. Biologically inspired legs for UAV perched landing, IEEE Aerospace and Electronics Magazine, February 2012, 27, (2), pp 4–13.Google Scholar
12.Ramamurti, R., Computational Fluid Dynamics Study for a Deep Stall AirVehicle, NRL/MR/6410–11-9339, May 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Simons, M., Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, Special Interest Model Books, 4th ed, 1999.Google Scholar
14.Foster, J.V. and Cunningham, K.. A GPS-Based Pitot-Static Calibration Method Using Global Output-Error Optimization, in 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciecnes Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA, January 2010.Google Scholar
15.Dias, J.N.. Flight Path Reconstruction Technqiues Applied to Spin Tests, in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechancis Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, June 2014.Google Scholar
16.Crowther, W.J. and Prassas, K.. Post Stall Landing for Field Retrieval of UAVs, in Bristol International. Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems Conference, Bristol, UK, 1999.Google Scholar
17.Yoon, S., Kim, H.J. and Kim, Y.. Spiral Landing Trajectory and Pursuit Guidance Law Design for Vision-Based Net-Recovery UAV, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 10-13 August 2008.Google Scholar
18.Wyllie, T.. Parachute recovery for UAV systems, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2001, 73, (6), pp 542–551.Google Scholar
19.Petry, G., Behr, R. and Tscharntke, L.. The Parafoil Technology Demonstration (PTD) Project: Lessons Learned and Future Visions, in 15th CEAS/AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology. Conference, Toulouse, France, 8-11 June 1999.Google Scholar
20.Stein, J.M., Madsen, C.M. and Strahan, A.L.. An Overview of the Guided Parafoil System Derived from X-38 Exprience, in 18th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, Munich, Germany, 24-26 May 2005.Google Scholar