Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T20:43:05.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the maximisation of control power in low-speed flight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2019

L. M. B. C. Campos  and
J. M. G. Marques
L. M. B. C. Campos*
Affiliation:
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico Universidade de Lisboa Lisboa, PortugalCentre for Aeronautical and Space Science and Technology (CCTAE)Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
J. M. G. Marques*
Affiliation:
IDMEC, Atlântica - Escola Universitária de Ciências Empresariais Saúde, Tecnologias e Engenharia, Fábrica da Pólvora de Barcarena Barcarena, Oeiras, 2730-036, PortugalCentre for Aeronautical and Space Science and Technology (CCTAE)Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
*
luis.campos@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
jmgmarques@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The maximisation of control power is considered for an aircraft with multiple control surfaces, with the force and moment coefficients specified by polynomials of the control surface deflections of degree two. The optimal deflections, which maximise and minimise any force or moment coefficient, are determined subject to constraints on the range of deflection of each control surface. The results are applied to a flying wing configuration to determine: (i/ii) the pitch trim, at the lowest drag for the fastest climb, and at the highest drag for the steepest descent; (iii) the maximum and minimum pitching moment; (iv) the maximum and minimum yaw control power and the fraction needed to compensate an outboard engine failure for several propulsion configurations; (v) the maximum and minimum rolling moment. The optimal use of all control surfaces has significant advantages over using just one, e.g. the range of drag modulation with pitch trim is much wider and the maximum and minimum available control moments larger.

Keywords

multiple control surfacesflying wing configurationoptimisationoptimal deflections

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1266 , August 2019 , pp. 1099 - 1121
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Mckinney, L. and Dollyhigh, S. Some trim drag considerations for maneuvering aircraft, 2nd Aircraft Design and Operations Meeting, AIAA, Los Angeles, CA, US, 20–22 July 1970, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S. and Combs, C. Trimmed drag and maximum flight efficiency of aft tail and canard configurations, 12th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA, Washington, DC, US, 30 January 1974 – 01 February 1974, pp 1–12.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M.D. Calculations, and comparison with an ideal minimum, of trimmed drag for conventional and canard configurations having various levels of static stability, NASA TN D-8391, 1977, pp 1–22, Washington, DC, US.Google Scholar
Kendall, E. The minimum induced drag, longitudinal trim and static longitudinal stability of two-surface and three-surface airplanes, 2nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Seattle, WA, US, 21– 23 August 1964, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
Ende, R. The effects of aft-loaded airfoils on aircraft trim drag, 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA, Meeting Location, Reno, NV US, 09–12 January 1989, pp 1–9.Google Scholar
Campos, L.M.B.C. and Marques, J.M.G. On the minimization of cruise drag due to pitch trim for a flying wing configuration, The CEAS Air and Space Conference, 7–11 Sept 2015, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rahman, N.U. and Whidborne, J.F. Propulsion and flight controls integration for a blended-wing-body transport aircraft, J Aircr, 2010, 47, (3), pp 895–903.Google Scholar
Deng, H., Yu, X., Yin, H. and Deng, F. Trim drag prediction for blended-wing-body UAV configuration, Trans Nanjing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut, 2015, 32, (1), pp 133–136.Google Scholar
Griffin, B.J., Brown, N.A. and Yoo, S.Y. Intelligent control for drag reduction on the X-48B vehicle, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Portland, Oregon, NV, US, 8–11 August 2011, pp 1–12.Google Scholar
Durham, W.C. Constrained control allocation, J Guidance Control and Dynamics, 16, (4), 1993, pp 717–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Härkegård, O. Dynamic control allocation using constrained quadratic programming, J Guidance Control and Dynamics, 2004, 27, (6), pp 1028–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolender, M.A. and Doman, D.B. Nonlinear control allocation using piecewise linear functions: a linear programming approach, J Guidance Control and Dynamics, 2005, 28, (3), pp 558–562.Google Scholar
Bodson, M. Evaluation of optimization methods for control allocation, J Guidance Control and Dynamics, 2002, 25, (2) pp 380–387.Google Scholar
Cook, M.V. and Castro, H.V. The longitudinal flying qualities of a blended-wing-body civil transport aircraft, Aeronautical J, 2004, 108, (1080), pp 75–84.Google Scholar
Roysdon, P.F. Blended wing body lateral-directional stability investigation using 6DOF simulation, Proceedings of the Institution of Mech Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 2016, 228, (1), pp 7–19.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. and Grant, P.R. Handling qualities of a blended wing body aircraft, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Portland, Oregon, US, 08–11 August 2011.Google Scholar
Jung, D.W. and Lowenberg, M.H. Stability and control assessment of a blended-wing-body airliner configuration, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, California, US, 15–18 August 2005.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. and Princen, N. Control allocation challenges and requirements for the blended wing body, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, Dever, CO, US, 14–17 August 2000.Google Scholar
Wildschek, A., Stroscher, F., Klimmek, T., Sika, Z., Vampola, T., Valasek, M., Gangsaas, D., Aversa, N. and Berard, A., Gust load alleviation on a large blended wing body airliner, 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Nice, France, 2010.Google Scholar
Waters, S.M., Voskuijl, M., Veldhuis, L.L.M. and Geuskens, F.J.J.M.M. Control allocation performance for blended wing body aircraft and its impact on control surface design, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2013, 29, (1), pp 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildschek, A., Bartosiewicz, Z. and Mozyrska, D. A multi-input multi-output adaptive feed-forward controller for vibration alleviation on a large blended wing body airliner, J Sound and Vibration, 2014, 333, (17), pp 3859–3880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozek, M. and Schirrer, A. (Eds.) Modeling and Control for a Blended Wing Body Aircraft– A Case Study, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer, Berlin, 2015.Google Scholar
Peifeng, L., Binqian, Z., Yingchun, C., Changsheng, Y. and Yu, L. Aerodynamic design methodology for a blended wing body transport, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2012, 25, (4), pp 508–516.Google Scholar
Campos, L.M.B.C. On physical aeroacoustics with some implications for low-noise aircraft design and airport operations, Aerospace, 2015, 2, (1), pp 17–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijts, C. and Voskuijl, M. The impact of control allocation on trim drag of blended wing body aircraft, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2015, 46, pp 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okonkwo, P. and Smith, H. Review of evolving trends in blended wing body aircraft design, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2016, 82, pp 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar