Uav Modeling Simulation Stability and Control-Libre
Uav Modeling Simulation Stability and Control-Libre
Uav Modeling Simulation Stability and Control-Libre
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
*BEng Final Year Project Report
School of Engineering and Technology
University of Hertfordshire
Report by
LEONINE .F KUNZWA
Supervisor
DR RASHID ALI
Date
27 April 2011
DECLARATION STATEMENT
I certify that the work submitted is my own and that any material derived or quoted from the
published or unpublished work of other persons has been duly acknowledged (ref. UPR
AS/C/6.1, Appendix I, Section 2 Section on cheating and plagiarism)
Student Full Name: LEONINE FUNGAI KUNZWA
Student Registration Number: 08177750
Signed:
Date: SELECT DATE OF SUBMISSION HERE
ABSTRACT
Static and dynamic stability was defined and the UAV components contribution to static and
dynamic stability was highlighted. The recommended geometric configurations based on
desired stability characteristics were outlined. The Longitudinal and lateral derivatives were
defined, estimated and analysed. They were estimated using the USF stability and control
Datcom (Data Compendium) method. An excel model was used to estimate the motions,
calculate the forces, moments and determine the transfer functions for longitudinal and lateral
modes. A Simulink model1 was developed to predict the dynamic characteristic of the existing
UH UAV (MAK.2). Another Simulink model was developed to overcome the drawbacks of
Simulink model1. The Simulink model was interfaced with flight gear and linked to excel model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Dr Rashid Ali for his support, motivation and supervision throughout the year.
I thank my family for supporting me and my parents for their inspiration and encouragement.
I also thank my housemates and friends Mr A Nyakandi, Mr K Kimani, Dr M Choong, Mr R Krish
for providing intellectually stimulating company and constructive criticism.
I thank Mr M Sakarombe and Mrs Kalama for their support.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. iii
Nomenclature ...............................................................................................................................1
1.
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
iii
8.2
iv
Nomenclature
a -Local speed of sound
r -Yaw rate
b -Wing span
u -Axial velocity
CD -Drag coefficient
v -Lateral velocity
V - velocity
w -Normal velocity
W- Weight
wing -ac
Cm Cm Cave slope
- Sideslip angle
-Control angle
damping ratio
-Elevator angle
- Pitch angle
-Eigenvalue
m- Mass
M -Mach number
-Aileron angle
M -Pitching moment
-Air density
N- Yawing moment
- Roll angle
p -Roll rate
Yaw angle
q -Pitch rate
Q -Dynamic pressure
1. Introduction
1.1
Unmanned Aerial vehicle (UAV) is defined as a powered aerial vehicle that uses
aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be
expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. [1]
The concept of UAV first started during American civil war. Balloons carrying explosives were
sent to explode in enemy territories. The Japanese also tried the same concept during World
War2. A prototype UAV called Operation Aphrodite was introduced by American defence
during World War 2 as an attempt to fly manned aircrafts in an unmanned mode. However,
the operation wasnt successful due to lack of technology to control the unmanned vehicle. [2]
The USA military used drones named U-2 and Firebee in 1960s for reconnaissance missions.
The firebee was extensively used for reconnaissance and combat during The Vietnam War. It
was equipped with UV cameras, communications and electronic intelligence.
The increase in technology has resulted in high endurance UAV with full combat capabilities.
For example, the Predator has 40hrs endurance and the Global hawk has 24hrs endurance.
There has been an increase in commercial applications of UAVs. Some of the industries in
which UAVs have gained interest are the agricultural sector where UAVs are beings used to
spray insecticides, fertiliser and for crop monitoring in large fields. [3]
They are also being used in mineral explorations for aerial surveying to find minerals in
otherwise inaccessible areas. Some UAVs are being used for coastline monitoring in marine
and mobile relay platforms in telecommunications. Other civilian uses of UAVs include news
broadcasting, air and ground traffic control for monitoring busy airports and motorways.
According to John Keller, America invested $4.5 billion in 2010 on UAV technology. [4]
There is a vast range of UAV designs and specifications and each suited for its intended
mission. As highlighted above, the use of UAVs is becoming more popular in both defence
and environmental research industries. However, there is still high developmental cost. The
UAV testing phase has the highest budget in the development cycle. [5]
There is also high risk that the UAV might be unstable or fail when subjected to different
parameters. One cannot be absolutely sure whether the UAV meets the specifications without
test flights. This project is a solution to the problems outlined. Modelling the UAV dynamics
will enable a thorough analysis in the behaviour and stability of the UAV at different
conditions. Real time simulations will save time cost and eliminate risk.
The project is to use MathWorks package (Matlab and Simulink) to model the six degrees of
freedom of the dynamics of a particular UAV; and use the model to accurately simulate any
UAV by simply changing the variables. This will be achieved by using the equations of motion.
This approach has been adopted by companies such as BAE systems when developing the
Eagle 150. BAE SYSTEMS Controls Develops Autopilot for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Using
MathWorks Tools. [6]
1.2
Aims:
To predict the static, dynamic stability and control parameters from the simulation.
Objectives:
Endurance of 3hrs
Maximum weight of 12kg including engine but excluding fuel and payload
Autonomous
Figure 1.2.2 axis system (from Matlab help manual by MathWorks 2009)
2.1
2.1
[15]
2.2
K2 k1 is the body fineness ratio correction factor
S is wing area
c is the wing aerodynamic chord
wf is the average fuselage sections
ow is wing zero lift angle relative to fuselage
if is incidence of the fuselage camber line relative to the fuselage
x is fuselage length increment
[18]
2.3
[21]
Downwash angle
2.4
o is downwash at zero angle of attack
d/d is change in downwash with respect to angle of attack
[22]
2.5
CLw is wing lift coefficient (from aerofoil data)
ARw is wing aspect ratio
CLw is wing lift curve slope
Coefficient of pitching moment of the UAV
Cmo = Cmot+ Cmof+ Cmow
Cm=Cmt + Cmw + Cmf
2.6
2.7
Kn is wing body interference factor
Krl is correction factor
Sfs is the projected area of fuselage
lf is fuselage length
Engine: aft engine is directionally stabilizing
Vertical tail: directionally stabilising
2.8
Dorsal fin: directionally stabilising with reduced drag
Rudder: Fixed rudder increases the vertical area thus increasing directional stability
Wing contribution is Cnw=CL/AR
[28]
The yawing moment coefficient due to sideslip of the UAV
Cn= Cnf + Cnw+ Cnv
2.9
10
11
3 Aerodynamic Modelling
Equations of motion are required for developing a mathematical model for simulating the UAV
dynamics.
Figure 3.1 Moments of inertia (from Michael. V. Cook Flight dynamics principal 2007 pg
71)
The equations of motion are developed assuming small deviation of UAV motion about the
steady flight condition; also known as small disturbance theory. [35]
12
Xw ,
Zu ,
Zw ,
Mw,
Mw
,
Mq ,
disturbances
The forces causing the longitudinal motions are X and Z and the corresponding moment is M.
Aerodynamic derivatives due to forward velocity (u)
Xu: Derivative for the rate of change of axial force with respect to forward speed. Xu is
regarded as a speed damping derivative and it is affected by aerodynamic forces. The
increase in forward speed will result in increase in drag; hence Xu increase with forward
speed.
Zu: Derivative for rate of change of normal force with respect to forward speed. Increasing
forward speed will result in increase in lift, thus decrease in Zu.
Mu: Derivative for change in pitching moment with due to forward speed. Mu=0 If
compressibility and aeroelastic effects are ignored.
Aerodynamic derivatives due to normal velocity (w)
Xw: Derivative for change in axial force due to change in normal velocity. Xw is affected by
increase in drag.
Zw: Derivative for change in normal force due to change in normal velocity. Zw is affected by
increase in lift coefficient.
Mw: Derivative for change in pitching moment due to change in normal velocity. Mw shows
the longitudinal static stability of the UAV with respect to change of incidence angle. For
longitudinal static stability Mw<0
Aerodynamic derivatives due to pitch rate (q)
These are tail contributions
Xq: Derivative for change in axial force due to change in pitch rate.
Zq: Derivative for change in normal force due to change in pitch rate.
Mq: Derivative for change in pitching moment due to change in pitch rate.
Aerodynamic derivatives due to elevator deflection
X : Derivative for change in axil force due to elevator deflection.
Z : Derivative for change in normal force due to elevator deflection. Z is a measure of
elevator effective ness at producing down force or lift.
M : Derivative for change in pitching moment due to elevator deflection. M is a measure of
elevator effectiveness on producing pitch about the UAV CG.
[36] (Aerospace systems dynamics and control notes)
13
Assumptions
Subsonic flight.
Xu SUC D
Zu SUC L
M
1
U 2 Sc C m
2
Mu
C m
1
U 2 Sc
2
U
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4 If compressibility effects are not ignored
C D
1
US C L
1
C L
US
CD
2
3.5
Xw
Zw
Downwash derivatives
Xw
1 X
1
C D
X
US
2
U
Zw
1 Z
1
Z
C L
US
2
U
w
Mw
1 M
1
M
Cm
USc
2
U
w
3.6
Control derivatives
X
1
C D
X
U 2 S
1
C L
Z
U 2 S
1
Cm
M
U 2 Sc
1
M
U 2 Sc Va 2
2
3.7
3.8
14
3.9
3.10
Normal axis derivatives
Normal force derivatives due to change in forward velocity, downwash, normal velocity, pitch
rate and elevator deflection, respectively.
3.11
[38]
Pitching moment derivatives
3.12
[39]
3.2.2
Yv ,
Lp ,
L ,
Nv ,
Np ,
Nr ,
15
3.14
16
Yawing moment derivatives due to sideslip, roll rate, yaw rate and rudder deflection,
respectively
3.15
[43]
Lateral force derivatives due to sideslip, roll rate, yaw rate and rudder deflection
3.16
3.17
3.18
[44]
4.1
[46]
Mq is the derivative for pitching moment due to pitch rate
M,M are the derivative for pitching moment due to change in incidence
Z is the derivative for change in normal force due to incidence
Uo is change in forward speed
17
4.2
Period = 2/
t1/2= -ln2/(- n) time to half amplitude
N1/2 = (t1/2)/Period, number of cycles
Phugoid
Phugoid is the lightly damped oscillation with a long period. It is characterised by change in
pitch attitude angle with very small changes in incidence. The change in forward speed is out
of phase with pitch attitude angle by 90. [47], (Introduction to aircraft stability and control 2
ASE4 notes studynet )
Estimating UAV phugoid
4.3
Xu and Zu are derivatives due to forward speed
Uo is the forward speed
g is the acceleration due to gravity
Estimation of phugoid
4.4
Period = 2/
t1/2= -ln2/(- n) , time to half amplitude
N1/2 = (t1/2)/Period, number of cycles
[48]
18
Zu is the derivative for the frequency of the phugoid motion. Increasing Zu increases
frequency of the phugoid motion.
The UAV should be easy to control therefore it should be designed to have heavily damped
motions with high frequency. Therefore the M, M and Mq derivatives should be large. [50]
5.1
is roll time constant.
r = Lp
t1/2 = -ln2/Lp
Spiral
A side slip disturbance will cause a yawing moment due to fin, this will result a yawing motion
which develops a rolling moment. The rolling moment then causes an increase in sideslip
velocity. [53], (Introduction to aircraft stability and control 2 ASE4 notes studynet)
Estimating UAV spiral mode.
Assuming the derivatives has the usual signs. That is ignoring control reversal.
The characteristic equation
5.2
The condition for stable spiral mode
5.3
[54]
19
5.4
Characteristic equation
5.5
Damping and frequency for the Dutch roll motion
5.6
Period = 2/
5.7
5.8
5.9
[55]
20
21
22
23
UAV model 3
Derivatives
24
7 Results
MAK II is a UH UAV.
MAK II geometry was used for the simulation.
The damping ratio ( ) and the undamped frequency () was calculated using the excel model.
Time period, time to half amplitude and the number of cycles was also determined using the
excel model. This was then used to validate the Simulink model.
Phugoid
Natural frequency ( )
6.44558408 rad/s
0.55501288 rad/s
Damping ratio ( )
0.76317201
0.1235096
Eigenvalues
-4.9190893 4.165107i
-0.068549230.5507634i
Period (T)
1.50853105 s
11.4081391 s
0.14026987 s
10.0657589 s
0.14413527
0.89062151
Number of cycles N
0.288
1.78
The table above shows that the phugoid motion damps half of its initial amplitude in
approximately 10 seconds. The phugoid motion lasted around 2 cycles. The SPPO motion
lasted for 0.3 cycles.
25
26
Approximate
Damping ratio ( )
0.76317201
Natural frequency ()
6.44558408
Exact method
Difference
rad/s
t1/2 /s
0.14026987
0.14064
0%
Period /s
1.50853105
1.506
0.%
N1/2
0.093
0.093
0%
Exact method
Difference
Approximate
Damping ratio ( )
0.1235096
Natural frequency ()
0.55501288
rad/s
t1/2 /s
10.065789
11.7085
17%
Period/s
11.4081391
14.8609
29%
N1/2
0.89062151
0.784
14%
27
28
Exact
Difference
Eigenvalue
-4.6102256
-4.822
4.5%
Time constant
Estimated 0.21690912 s
0.1437s
4.4%
Observed 6.3 s
t1/2
0.15034995 s
Exact
Eigenvalue
0.733856
0.0293
Stability criteria
0>-9.17831 Unstable!
Difference
[0<(LNr>NLr)]
t2
0.940239s
23.7s
Huge difference!
Exact
Difference
Natural frequency ()
5.00686139
5.0652
Damping ratio ( )
3.98459278
0.7045
Eigenvalue ()
-3.5535436.12969274
-0.70455.0652
Period /s
1.02504083
1.239
21%
t1/2 /s
0.19417241
0.9839
Huge difference
Approximate
Exact
t1/2 (s)
Period (s)
t1/2 (s)
Spiral mode
0.94023
23
Roll mode
0.1503499
0.1437
0.1941724
1.0250483
0.9839
Period (s)
1.239
29
30
8.1
Simulink Model 1
31
Longitudinal dynamics
32
33
34
The lateral dynamics are calculated in the lateral dynamics platform. This comprises of the
side force, rolling and yawing moment subsystems.
The force and moments subsystems
35
36
Visual platform
This is the flight gear interface and Matlab based animation.
37
8.2
Simulink model 2
38
39
40
Roll control
Altitude control
Pitch control
41
Visual platform
The visual platform has interface with flight gear and Matlab based animation.
42
43
44
Summary
The MAK 2 UH UAV geometry data was used for the simulations.
The static and dynamic stability was defined and further analysed. The derivatives were
estimated based on the USF DATCOM method. Recommendations for an optimum UAV
geometry configuration were outlined. The derivatives and their effects on stability was
analysed in further detail. Two Simulink models were developed. Model 1 further linked to
excel and interfaced with flight-gear. This enabled all flight phases to be simulated with
automatic updates without recalculating any derivatives. Model Simulink 2 was developed to
provide both stability and mission profile simulation. It uses Digital DATCOM to calculate
derivatives. Excel model was used to validate the Simulink models by comparing the
estimated dynamic characteristics with the observed characteristics. The models can be used
to simulate any dynamics of any convectional UAV for any flight conditions. The response to
control surface inputs and atmospheric disturbances were determined. The simulations shows
that the MAK2 UH UAV has positive longitudinal dynamic stability for the given flight
conditions. The MAK2 UAV has a heavily damped SPPO mode and a lightly damped
phugoid. MAK2 UH UAV reaches equilibrium position in approximately 84 seconds after a
step elevator disturbance. The MAK2 UH UAV has positive lateral stability in roll and yaw
disturbances for the given flight conditions. The observed roll time constant was much greater
than the estimated roll time constant. Therefore the MAK2 roll rate is less responsive than
estimated. The estimation method showed that MAK2 UH UAV is unstable in spiral mode.
The research can be used by the UH UAV final year team and UH UAV society to develop an
advanced UAV capable of different missions. The stability and augmentation study can be
used to design a very stable UH UAV that can also be easily controlled. The simulations can
be used for UAV design optimisation, flight testing, and mission simulations. The model is
currently interfaced with flight gear. However for further work it can be interfaced with X-Plane
which is a more accurate flight simulation that offers flight statistical data for further analyses.
45
Encountered problems
The project was run according to the time plan and it was completed on time. The main
problem was getting the data from the other UAV team members. Hence an alternative was to
use data from MAK2 an existing UH UAV. The University did not deliver the ordered materials
for the actual UAV to be built. However the stability work carried out will be a great
contribution to the UH-UAV team. I also contributed by coming up with creative solutions
such as using jigs when hotwiring. This resulted in the ailerons being completed in little time.
Time plan
46
References
1. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defence 2005
[viewed January 2011], available from:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Unmanned+Aerial+Vehicle
2. Brief History of UAVs (c) January 2003 LIST lab, University of Florida [Viewed 22
December 2010] available from: http://www.list.ufl.edu/uav/UAVHstry.htm
3. Airborne Autonomous system [Viewed 4 December 2010], available from:
http://www.unmannedaircraft.org/page/page/1357249.htm
4. Defence industry daily. An Enhanced Predator for the Army. Gray Eagle 05
October 2010 [Viewed 22 October 2010] available from:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/warrior-ermp-an-enhanced-predator-for-thearmy-03056/
5. BAE SYSTEMS Controls Develops Autopilot for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Using
MathWorks Tools. Feng Liang 2003 [Viewed 20 October 2010] available from:
http://www.mathworks.com/rapidprototyping/userstories.html?file=45510&title=BAE%20SYSTEMS%20Controls%20D
evelops%20Autopilot%20for%20Unmanned%20Aerial%20Vehicle%20Using%20Mat
hWorks%20Tools
6. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 237
7. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson,1998, 39
8. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, john
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 238
9. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 238
10. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000,238
11. John Hodgkinson, Aircraft Handling qualities, Blackwell Sciences,1999, 21
12. John Hodgkinson, Aircraft Handling qualities, Blackwell Science,1999, 24
13. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 245
14. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons,2000,245
15. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 247
16. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson, 1989, 50
47
17. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson, 1989, 50
18. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics , 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 248
19. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill:Tom
Casson 1989, 50
20. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 248
21. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson, 1988, 50
22. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 249
23. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson, 1998, 63
24. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casion, 1998, 65
25. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson,1998, 67
26. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 259
27. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition John
Wiley and Sons, 2000 , 264
28. Robert C.Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson 1998, 65
29. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson,1998,81
30. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson, 1998, 81
31. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 274
32. Charles E. Dole, James E. Lewis Flight Theory and Aerodynamics , 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, 2000, 274
33. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill:Tom
Casson,1998,100
34. Michael. V. Cook Flight dynamics principal, 2nd edition, Elsevier Ltd, 2007, 71
35. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill: Tom
Casson,1998,104
36. Aerospace systems dynamics and control Meng notes, University of Hertfordshire,
studynet, 2011
37. Level M flight Mechanics notes , Hertfordshire University, studynet , 2011
48
38. Michael. V. Cook Flight dynamics principal, 2nd edition, Elsevier Ltd, 2007, 381
39. Michael. V. Cook Flight dynamics principal, 2nd edition, Elsevier Ltd, 2007, 381
40. Aerospace systems,dynamics and control MEng notes, Hertfordshire University,
studynet, 2011
41. Aerospace systems dynamics and control MEng notes, Hertfordshire University
studynet, 2011
42. Aerospace systems dynamics and control MEng notes, Hertfordshire University
studynet, 2011
43. Aerospace systems dynamics and control MEng notes, Hertfordshire University ,
studynet, 2011
44. Michael. V. Cook Flight dynamics principal, 2nd edition, Elsevier Ltd, 2007, 384
45. Michael. V. Cook Flight dynamics principal, 2nd edition, Elsevier Ltd, 2007, 384
46. Introduction to aircraft stability and control 2 ASE4 notes, University of Hertfordshire
studynet, 2011
47. Introduction to aircraft stability and control 2 ASE4 notes, University of Hertfordhsire
studynet, 2011
48. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill,
1989,159
49. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control,1st edition, McGraw-Hill,
1989,162
50. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill,
1989,162
51. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill,
1989,181
52. Introduction to aircraft stability and control 2 ASE4 notes, University of Hertfordshire
studynet, 2011
53. Introduction to aircraft stability and control 2 ASE4 notes, University of Hertforshire
studynet,2011
54. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill,
1989,198
55. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 1st edition, Mc Graw-Hill,
1989,198
56. Robert C. Nelson Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition, Mc Graw-Hill,
1989,231
49
Bibliography
1. Accelerating the space of engineering and science, Aerospace and defence
www.mathworks.com/aerospace-defense/
2. Stevens, B. L., and F. L. Lewis, Aircraft Control and Simulation, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1992.
3. Smetana, F.O., Computer assisted analysis of aircraft performance stability and
control, McGraw-Hill 1984.
4. Babister A.W, Aicraft Dynamics Stability and Response, Pergamon Press, 1980
5. Etkin B, Reid L.D, Dynamics of flight stability and control, 3rd edition, John Wiley and
Sons
6. Schmidt L.V, Introduction to aircraft flight dynamics, American Institute of Aeronautics
and astronautics, 1998
7. Miller M.P, Accurate method of measuring the moments of Inertia of airplanes,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington October 1930.
8. Roskan J, Aiplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic control, 3rd edition, 2001.
DARcorporation
9. Turevskiy A, Gage S, Buhr C , Model-Based Design of a New Light-weight
Aircraft.The MathWorks, Inc. Natick, MA, 01760
10. Mathworks Matlab help file
All the equations used for this project can be obtained from the following books
List in order of importance
1. Flight stability and Automatic control, 2nd edition, Mc Graw-Hill by Robert C. Nelson
2. Flight dynamics principal, 2nd edition, Elsevier Ltd, 2007 by Michael .V .Cook
3. Aircraft handling qualities 1st edition, Blackwell Science Ltd , 1999 by John
Hodgkinson
50
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: The longitudinal derivative estimation equations
51
52
53