Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qr5l4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T10:27:00.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generic stability and control for aerospace flight vehicle conceptual design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

B. Chudoba ,
G. Coleman ,
H. Smith  and
M. V. Cook
B. Chudoba
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA
G. Coleman
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA
H. Smith
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK
M. V. Cook
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, 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 recent period has been filled with exceptionally interesting developments and advances, resulting in high-performance conventional and non-conventional manned and unmanned aircraft. Although those vehicles seem to comply well with specific mission performance requirements, one is still confronted with an apparent weakness to reliably stabilise and control throughout the flight envelope. Since the provision of satisfactory stability and control characteristics invariably compromises flight performance, it becomes essential to identify and integrate performance-optimal stability and control design solutions early during the flight vehicle definition phase. In particular, the conceptual design of integrated control effectors for advanced aircraft is far from being trivial. Never before have we been presented with such tremendous wealth of specialised data and information suitable for detail design of controls. In contrast, never before has it been necessary to approach any one of the primary design disciplines still as entirely ad hoc and inconsistent as in the case of designing controls during the conceptual design phase. This need initiated the development of a configuration independent (generic) stability and control methodology capable of sizing primary control effectors of fixed wing subsonic to hypersonic designs of conventional and unconventional, symmetric and asymmetric configuration layouts. This paper summarises the methodology concept and demonstrates its versatility and validity by analyzing selected stability and control characteristics of the Northrop YB-49 flying wing.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1132 , June 2008 , pp. 293 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

References

1. Root, L.E., Dynamic longitudinal stability charts for design use, J Aeronautical Sciences, May 1935, 2, pp 101–108.Google Scholar
2. McRuer, D. and Graham, D., Eighty years of flight control: triumphs and pitfalls of the systems approach, J Guidance and Control, July-August 1981, 4, (4), pp 353–362.Google Scholar
3. Obert, E., Tail design, report No. H-0-93, Issue No 1, Fokker Aircraft BV, lecture notes to the ECATA Postgraduate Aircraft Design Course, 22 March 1992.Google Scholar
4. Cook, M.V., The new age of flight control, Aerogram, December 1999, 9, (4), College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, UK, pp 9–13.Google Scholar
5. Chudoba, B., Stability and Control of Conventional and Unconventional Aircraft Configurations – A Generic Approach, 1st ed, Books on Demand, Norderstedt, Germany, January 2002.Google Scholar
6. Chudoba, B., Development of a Generic Stability and Control Methodology for the Conceptual Design of Conventional and Unconventional Aircraft Configurations, PhD Dissertation, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, UK, April 2001.Google Scholar
7. Torenbeek, E., Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, 9th ed, Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.Google Scholar
8. Coleman, G. and Chudoba, B., A generic stability and control tool for conceptual design – prototype system overview, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2007-659, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 8-11 January 2007Google Scholar
9. Lee, H.P., Change, M. and Kaiser, M.K., Flight dynamics and stability and control characteristics of the X-33 technology demonstrator vehicle, AIAA Paper, AIAA-98-4410, 1998.Google Scholar
10. Kay, J. and Mason, W.H., et al Control authority issues in aircraft conceptual design: critical conditions, Estimation Methodology, Spreadsheet Assessment, Trim and Bibliography, VPI-Aero-200, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, November 1993.Google Scholar
11. Chudoba, B. and Smith, H., A generic stability and control methodology for novel aircraft conceptual design, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2003-5388, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, 11 August 2003.Google Scholar
12. Chudoba, B. and Cook, M.V., Identification of design-constraining flight conditions for conceptual sizing of aircraft control effectors, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2003-5386, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, 11 August 2003.Google Scholar
13. Pippalapalli, K.K., AeroMech – A conceptual design stability and control analysis tool, MS Dissertation, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
14. Coleman, G.J. Jr, A generic stability and control tool for flight vehicle conceptual design: AeroMech software development, MS Dissertation, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, Texas, USA. May 2007.Google Scholar
15. Goodrich, K.H., Sliwa, S.M. and Lallman, F.J., A closed form trim solution yielding minimum trim drag for airplanes with multiple longitudinal control effectors, NASA TP 2907, May 1989.Google Scholar
16. Lan, E., User’s Manual for VORSTAB Code (Version 3.2), Department of Aerospace Engineering, The University of Kansas, Kansas, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
17. Hoak, D.E. and Finck, R.D., et al, USAF stability and control datcom, Flight Control Division, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, USA, 1978.Google Scholar
18. Baker, W.M., Elliott, R.D. and Miranda, L.R., A generalized vortex lattice method, LAR-12636, Langley Research Center, Virginia, USA, 1980.Google Scholar
19. Chudoba, B., Software defining specification for the VORSTAB aerodynamic prediction program, CoA Report NFP0105, Department of Aerospace Technology, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, UK, June 1999.Google Scholar
20. Coleman, G.J. Jr., A generic stability and control tool for flight vehicle conceptual design: AeroMech software development, MS dissertation, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, USA, May 2007.Google Scholar
21. Chudoba, B. and Cook, M.V., Trim equations of motion for aircraft design: steady state straight line flight, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2003-5691, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, 11 August 2003.Google Scholar
22. Chudoba, B. and Cook, M.V., Trim equations of motion for aircraft design: turning flight, pull-up and push-over, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2003-5693, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, 11 August 2003.Google Scholar
23. Chudoba, B. and Cook, M.V., Trim equations of motion for aircraft Design: Rolling Performance and Take-Off Rotation, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2003-5695, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, 11 August 2003.Google Scholar
24. Abzug, M., Computational Flight Dynamics, 1st ed, AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, Virginia, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
25. Anon, , XB-35 Basic Dimensions, Report No D-5 (unclassified 14 April 1955), Northrop Aircraft, Inc, 30 November 1945.Google Scholar
26. Anon, Erection and maintenance instructions for model YB-49 airplane, Report AN 01-15EAB-2, Northrop Aircraft, Inc, 1 April 1948.Google Scholar
27. Lane, W.H., Stability and control flight tests of the YB-49 Airplane, USAF No. 42-102367, Memoradum Report No MCRFT-2280, 1950.Google Scholar
28. Anon, J.R., Phase II test of the YB-49 airplane, USAF No 42-102368, Memorandum Report No. MCRFT-2156, 1948.Google Scholar
29. Anon, , Military Specification – Flying qualities of piloted airplanes, military specification, MIL-F-8785C, 1980.Google Scholar
30. Roskam, J., flight dynamics and automatic flight controls – Part I, 3rd ed, DARcorporation, 1995.Google Scholar