ProblemSet#2

AA241X
Team2Fregata
TeamMembers:
FrankFan
ShawnGao
KyleJulian
JohnMcNelly
JonSchut
RyanWilliams


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Videolinksforflightofthewing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn9qzKvhAgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGAwR6uAJ2E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoPG6PHy5ps

Task1:Experimentaldeterminationoftrimcontrolinputs
ContributingMembers:KyleJulian

We flew ourblendedwingaircraftatsixdifferentairspeedsatroughlysteadylevelflight.
Theconstantcontrol inputsrequiredforheading,speed,andaltitudearethetrim settingsforeach
of the controlinputs.Duringtheexperiment,our pilottrieddifferentthrottleinputsandmanually
adjusted the elevator input until level flight was achieved for a periodofafewseconds.Aileron
inputs were used to level out the plane initially, but the trim setting should ideally be around
zero. Our aircraft does not have a rudder, so there arenoruddertrimsettings.Thus,theorderof
trimming the aircraft is to select a throttle input, trim the elevator for level flight, and then trim
theaileronstoensureconstantheading.
Because these test points were flown manually, the results are subject to some errors
because the aircraft may have been climbing or descending slightly during the test point.
However, we are still able to see general trends among the data, as shown in the plots below.
Figure 1 shows the trim throttle settings at the respective airspeeds achieved during trimmed
flight. Note that the trim inputs shown here are the nondimensional servo outputs. Throttle has
valuesfrom0to1,whileelevator,aileron,andrudderhavevaluesfrom1to1.

Figure1:Throttletrimsettings

The generated curve roughly follows a quadratic fit, as expected from the theoretical
equationfordrag,whichisapproximatelyequaltodraginsteadylevelflight.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

KW
T = D = 1/2C D0SV 2 + 1/2SV
2

The elevator trim settings are shown below in Figure 2. These settings change linearly
with airspeed. The slower you fly, the more elevator is need to pitch up the aircraft in order to
increasetheangleofattacktokeepliftequaltoweightforlevelflight.

Figure2:Elevatortrimsettings

For the aileron trim, the ideal aircraft requires no aileron to trim. However, small
deviations in one side of the aircraft, or deviations in mass distribution can create a moment on
the aircraft. If one side has a higher C
L than the other side, the moment created by the different
lift forces will increase as the airspeed increases. Therefore, any small aileron trim settings
should grow as you increase airspeed.Figure3showsthattheailerontrimtendstoincreasewith
airspeed.Becausethevaluesaresosmall,theplottedresultsmaynotbeasaccurate.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure3:Ailerontrimsettings

Our aircraft is a flying wing, so there is no rudder input to trim. Also, because we are
using a flying wing design, our aileron and elevator inputs get mixed togetherintoelevons.The
trim settings shown here can be summed in order to get the trimmed servo outputs for each
elevon.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Task2:Flightdynamicsandperformancemodeling
ContributingMembers:JonSchut,FrankFan,ShawnGao

FortheBixler3RCAircraft:

Similar to the approach used in the first problem set, the XFLR5 software was used to
theoretically analyze the aerodynamic performance of the modified Bixler 3 R/C aircraft. The
modifications to the Bixler 3 include replacing the foam canopy with a wooden canopy that
houses the avionics and removing the front landing gear. In addition, the previous aerodynamic
model from Problem Set 1 has been modified to include the following control surfaces: an
elevator, a rudder, and ailerons. These components are modeled in XFLR5 by setting a trailing
edge flap within the respective airfoils, where the wing is a NACA 1408 airfoil, the horizontal
tail is a NACA 0008 airfoil,andtheverticalfinisaNACA0006airfoil.TheNACA1408airfoil
was chosen because the main wing is narrow with only a slight camber.Inthedesignofthefull
wing, additional modifications incorporated the dihedral and smallangle twist at the wing tips.
For the horizontaltailandtheverticalfin,theNACA0008andNACA0006airfoilswerechosen
because these components of the aircraft have small thicknesses and uncambered profiles.
Figure4displaysthesimulatedmodeloftheBixler3withitsvariouscontrolsurfacesdeflected.

Figure4:TheaerodynamicmodeloftheBixler3withthecontrolsurfacesdeflected.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

T
he mass distribution of the Bixler 3, with the avionicsrepresentedaspointmasses,was

updated in order to get a reasonable estimate of the aircrafts inertia matrix. Since a digital
kitchen scale was used for weight estimates, the mass measurements most likely have arelative
error of about1gramforsmallercomponentsandabout5gramsforlargeritemslikethewing
and fuselage. The following table outlines the mass estimates, including the total mass with its
uncertaintyerror.

MassEstimationfortheModifiedBixler3RCAircraft(g)
MainWing

254

Fuselage
(withhorizontaltailandVerticalFin)

266

Avionics

460

3S2200mAhZippyLipoBattery

186

Pixhawk,GPS&Magnetometer,
Telemetry/Transmitter

134

HobbyKing20AESC

30

PowerModule

10

Servos

30

WoodenCanopy

55

Wiring

15

Propulsion

100

Motor

90

Propeller

10

TotalEstimatedMass(g)

108020

Given this approximate model of the Bixler 3 and the distribution of mass, the
centerofgravity is centrally locatedinthebodyjustbelowthemainwing,asshowninFigure5.
Using body axes and the centerofgravity as the origin, XFLR5 estimated the inertia of the
aircraft,whichispresentedinthefollowingtable.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure5:ThemassdistributionoftheBixler3andtheonboardavionics,withthecenterofgravity
highlightedinred.

ParametersfortheModifiedBixler3
GeneralEstimates
Mass

108020g

MainWingArea

2
0.2720.001m

MainWingSpan

1.4600.005m

HorizontalTailArea

2
0.0500.001m

VerticalFinArea

2
0.0200.001m

CenterofGravityEstimates
X_CoG

0.08930.0100m

Y_CoG

00.01m

Z_CoG

0.02970.0100m
InertiaEstimates

I
xx

2
0.037640.00020kg*m


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

I
yy

2
0.042660.00020kg*m

I
zz

2
0.078480.00020kg*m

I
xz

2
0.00066040.0002000kg*m

Note:Theuncertaintyinthedimensionalquantitiesisfromusingarulerforthesemeasurements,andthe
uncertaintyintheinertiaisapproximatedusingerrorpropagationinthemassdistributionestimates.

For the theoretical analysis of the Bixler 3, the aircrafts aerodynamic performance was
computed over a sequence of angles of attack for airspeeds ranging from 7 to 15 m/s using a
vortexlattice method in XFLR5. During this analysis, the control surfaces were set to zero
deflection. Figure 6 provides a plot of the lift coefficient versus angle of attack for the Bixler 3
model that is independent of velocity. The error estimate for this plot was approximated by
comparing the XFLR5 results with both anXFOILanalysisoftheNACA 1408 airfoilatvarious
Reynolds numbers and the experimental results published by Selig et. al for similar airfoil
shapes. Also, the experimental measurements from the first testflightoftheBixler3weretaken
into consideration when determining a suitable error estimate for C
L at various angles of attack.
Based on the plot, a rough approximation for the maximum lift coefficient is:
C
Lmax 1.06
0.20
.

Figure6:LiftcoefficientversusangleofattackfortheBixler3RCaircraft.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

The analysis also computed drag polars of the aircraft for a range of at different
airspeeds. Similar to the first problem set, the approximationsoutlinedinMohammadSadraeys
Aircraft Performance: Analysis were utilized to account for additional sources of drag on the
aircraft. The specific equations and quantities used can be found in the Problem Set 1 writeup,
withthefinalapproximationbeing:

To account for additional sources of drag based on the aircrafts geometry and
configuration that are difficult to quantitatively model, the correction factor K
c isassumedto be
1.3. A plot of C
L versus C
D thatuses theupdated dragcoefficients isshownin Figure7,with the
datapointsalongeachcurvecorrespondingtoincreasinganglesofattack.

Figure7:TheestimateddragpolarsfortheBixler3overarangeofvelocities.

Based on these results from the XFLR5 analysis, the drag increases significantly for
higher angles of attack due to the presenceofadditionalviscousdragontheaircraft.Sincethese
viscous effects are interpolated from XFOILs direct foil analysis, the portion ofthedragpolars
corresponding to large angles of attack likely contains errors on the order of about 20% of the
estimated value. Thus, the error estimates for large angles of attack range from about 0.16 to
0.20. However, forsmaller,incomparingtheaerodynamicperformanceestimatesof theBixler


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

3 with the experimental data collected for Problem Set 1, therelativeerroris onlyabout 15%of
the estimated value. Figure 8 displays these error estimates for a small subset ofthedragpolars
forbetween0and8degrees.

Figure8:TwodragpolarsfortheBixler3forbetween0and8degrees,withtheerrorestimates.

The lift to drag ratio, computed using C

/C
, is plotted versus angle of attack for the
L
D
range of airspeeds in Figure 9, without error estimates. For the error estimate, an approach
similar to that used for the drag polars was implemented, in which thetheoreticalpredictionsof
the Bixler 3 were compared with the experimental data of our initial test flight to estimate the
error in aerodynamic performance. Based on this comparison, the error in L/D is estimated as
roughly 15% of the estimated value. Figure10displaysthelifttodragratioversusairspeedwith
this error estimate for a small subset of the angles of attack. Based on these plots, a theoretical
approximation for the maximum lift to drag ratio is:
9.3 1.4 for an airspeed of15m/sat
4.5degrees.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure9:PlotofL/Dversusangleofattackfortherangeofairspeeds.

Figure10:PlotofL/Dversusairspeedforafewanglesofattack.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

For the level flight power consumption, a theoretical approximation can be found by
usingsteadylevelflightrelations:

Assuming an efficiency of 0.41, Figure 11 displays a plot of the power consumption estimates
versusvelocityforavarietyofattackangles.

Figure11:Estimatedpowerconsumptionversusvelocityforsmallanglesofattackthat
effectivelycorrespondtolevelflight.

Based ontheempiricalresultsofthefirst testflight,theairspeedcorrespondingtosteady,

level flight is approximately 15 m/s. From the plot above, the estimated powerconsumptionfor
small angles of attack at this speedrangesfromapproximately45Wto67W.Giventhisrangeof
uncertainty, a rough estimate for the power consumption at level flight with 1.5is:
5310
Watts
.

To theoretically approximate the power consumption for different climb rates, the
quasisteadyassumptionisused,inwhichtheairspeedisheld approximatelyconstant.Giventhis
assumption,thegoverningequationsforclimbingflightbecomes:


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

and

where hdot is the climb rate and is the climb angle. These equations can then be used to
estimatethepowerrequiredforaparticularclimbrateinthefollowingway:

The static thrust on the motor of the Bixler 3 was measured to be roughly 7 N. Then,
assuming a constant velocity of 14 m/s, the following table lists the estimated power
consumption for various climb rates. The errorforthispowerconsumptionwasapproximatedas
roughly 15% of the estimated value, the relative error observed between the theoretical
aerodynamicsimulationsandtheexperimentalresultsfortheBixler3.

PowerConsumptionEstimatesforDifferentClimbRatesof
theBixler3
ClimbRate(m/s)

EstimatedPowerConsumption
(Watts)

87.41513.000

76.82911.500

66.24510.000

55.6608.500

To obtain estimates of the stability and control derivatives for the Bixler3aircraft,three
different stability simulations were performed in XFLR5. For each of these analyses, one ofthe
control surfaces were incrementally deflected such that the stability derivatives could be
computed for trim conditions in response to the deflection. Also, in performing these stability
analyses, theneutralpointiscalculatedtobeabout:x
np 0.143 m.Thus,with x
cg 0.0893m and
the mean aerodynamic chord being approximately 0.191 m, the static margin of the Bixler 3 is
about28.1%.

The resulting stability and control derivatives are summarized in the following three
tables. However, one drawback of thismethodisthatXFLR5assumesaninviscidanalysiswhen
computing the stability response of the aircraft model. Therefore, we can expect that this
simplifying assumption will introduce a considerable amount of error in the aircrafts stability


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

derivatives. To estimate this error, the initial intent was to obtain an XFLR5 model of anactual
airplane that has wellknown or documented stability derivatives and useitsstabilityanalysisas
a basis. However, since no model could be found, the alternative was to compare the results of
the simulations with thetypicalvaluesofthenondimensionalderivativesavailablein
Automatic
Control of Aircraft and Missiles by John Blakelock. Despite a fewdramaticdifferencesinsome
of the derivative quantities, most of the typical values are within a 50% error margin of the
estimated value. Therefore, a rough estimate for the error of thestability andcontrolderivatives
is50%oftheestimatedvalue.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Note:Inordertolistallofthederivativesabove,theerrorestimatesarenotexplicitlywritten,
buttheyareapproximatedas50%oftheestimatedvalue.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Note:Inordertolistallofthederivativesabove,theerrorestimatesarenotexplicitlywritten,
buttheyareapproximatedas50%oftheestimatedvalue.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Note:Inordertolistallofthederivativesabove,theerrorestimatesarenotexplicitlywritten,
buttheyareapproximatedas50%oftheestimatedvalue.

The stability analysis in XFLR5 also computes the eigenvalues that correspond to the
different modes of flight for a particular trim condition. These eigenvalues can then be used to
approximate the frequency and damping ratios of the longitudinalandlateralaircraftmodesasa
function of the airspeed. Also, it is difficulttodetermineanerrorestimateforthesevalues,buta
quick comparison with other aircraft examples given in Blakelocks textbook suggest an error


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

estimateofroughly20%oftheestimatedvalues.Theseresultsaresummarized inthe threetables

below. For all three control surface deflections/gains, the phugoid, short period and dutch roll
modesareunderdamped,whereastherolldampingmodeiscriticallydamped.

*Notethatthespiralmodeisinherentlyunstable,soiseffectivelydrivingthesystem,not
damping.

Based on the table above for aileron deflections, the damping ratio of the phugoidmode
increases as airspeed increases, while frequency slightly decreases. However, the short period
exhibits the opposite behavior in that decreasesandfrequencyincreaseswithincreasingspeed.
The rollsubsidencemoderemainscriticallydampedforallairspeeds, butitsfrequencygradually
decreases as the speed increases. Finally, thebehaviorofthedutch rollmodeissimilartothatof
theshortperiodmodesincedampingdecreasesandfrequencyincreasesforlargerairspeeds.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Notethatthespiralmodeisinherentlyunstable,soiseffectivelydrivingthesystem,not
damping.

As shown in the table for downward elevator deflections, the damping ratio of the
phugoid mode decreases as airspeed decreases, while frequency increases. The dutch roll mode
exhibits the opposite behaviorinthatincreasesandfrequencydecreaseswithdecreasingspeed.
In addition, both the damping ratio and the frequency of the short period mode decreases for
smaller speeds. The rollsubsidence mode remainscriticallydamped,butitsfrequencydecreases
withdecreasingairspeeds.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Notethatthespiralmodeisinherentlyunstable,soiseffectivelydrivingthesystem,not
damping.

Based on the table for rudder deflections, both the damping ratio and frequency of the
phugoid mode slightly increase as the airspeed decreases. The short period mode is the exact
opposite in that both and frequency slightly decrease for smaller speeds. The dutch roll mode
exhibits a similar behavior to the short period mode as the airspeed is decreasing. Finally, the
rollsubsidence mode remains critically damped and its frequency decreases as the airspeed
decreases.

We used MotoCalc to analyze our propulsive system. The table below summarizes the
electromechanical components of Bixler 3s propulsive system. Some properties are default
valuesstoredinMotoCalc.
Bixler3spropulsivesystem

Motor

Turnigy26301400kV

1400rpm/V,0.07
,63g

Propeller

APC8(approximate)

8x4,CP=1.11,CT=1

Battery

Variousbrands

3SLiPo,11.1V,2200mAh

Speedcontrol

Unknown

20A,30g


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

At maximum throttle, the propulsive system has the characteristics shown in Figure X.
The thrust decreasesfrom25oz(6.9N)whentheplaneisstationarytoabout9oz(2.5N)whenthe
airspeed reachesabout33mph(15m/s),whichisaboutthemaximumthatBixler3isgoingtofly.
When the airspeed is low, thepropellerhasarelativelyconstantRPMofabout12600.However,
whentheplanefliesfasterthanabout15mph(6.7m/s),thepropellerhastorotatefaster.

Figure12:Inflightanalysisofthrust(red)andRPM(blue)againstairspeedatmaximumthrottle

Forourprototypeaircraft:

Design:

The overall design of our plane is a blended wing body, chosen for severalreasons.Our
team looked into several potential candidates: conventional plane, canard, delta wing, and
blended wing body. Canards bring slight improvements to maneuverability in certainsituations,
but overall suffer from instability. They are also no easier to build than aconventionalairplane.
Delta wingsaregoodforhigh speedsandperformreasonablypoorlyinlowspeedsituations.The


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

said disadvantagesofthecanardanddeltawingwereenoughtodeterusfromattemptingtobuild
them.
In deciding between a conventional plane and a blended wing body design, the main
factors that we considered were speed, maneuverability, stability, manufacturability, and cool
factor. Upon reading some forums, anarticlefromNASA[1],andathesisfromtheUniversityof
Toronto[2], we discovered that a blended wing body does have the advantages of higher speed
and efficiency, as well as good maneuverability and stability. In other words, having higher
speed and efficiency doesnotcomeatagreatcosttomaneuverabilityandstabilitycomparedtoa
conventional plane. We also believed that becausethereareonly2controlsurfacesonablended
wing body as opposed to 4 (if each aileron is considered one control surface) onaconventional
airplane, it would be easier tobuild.Therewouldbefewerpartsandfewerpiecestocut.Finally,
we were confident that the blended wing body has an additional cool factor that makes it both
fun to build and fly, giving the team experience good learning experience in designing and
controllingatypeofairplanethatisoftenhyped,butrarelytaughtindetailinschool.
With the basic design in mind, we then continued onto more detailed design. The first
steps were sizing the airplane and selecting an airfoil. Approximate size was calculated by
weighing all the electrical components that would be required in the airplane this came outto
be ~460g. Because we decided to build the plane out of pink foam for ease of creating more
3
precise tapered and twisted wings, we also found that the density of foam is ~25kg/m
.
Therefore, whatever airplane we design, it would need to carry itsownweight,generatedbythe
pink foam and the structural elements such as ribbing, spars, and glue as well as the 460g of
mandatory electronics. The size of the airplane should be able to hold all of the components
2
safely.Assuch,aninitialguessforthespanoftheplanewas~1.4mwithawingareaof~0.35m
.
Selection of the airfoil was an iterative process. We knewthatwewantedanairfoilthathadlow
drag, and searched on theUIUClowspeedairfoildatabase.After confirmingthattheairfoilshad
acceptable C
L and C
D at our design points (Re ~50,000 to 500,000), we imported their profiles
intoXFLR5.
Next, using a little bit of intuition as to the approximate shape and size that should be
taken by our plane, we ran through many simulations with XFLR5.Boththemiddlesectionand
the wings would be airfoil profiles, with a smooth loft between the sections. One difficulty that
we initially had was that we could not trim the aircraft.Thedifficultycomesoutof nothaving a
tail that could generate a significant moment downwards without adding too muchoverallforce
downwards. Even with extreme sweep and twist, we were still a little bit away from trimming
using conventional cambered airfoils. To address this problem, we delved into using reflexed
airfoils to obtain a natural trimmingeffect,andsettledontheMH62.Theairplanenowtrimmed
~6 degrees angle of attack, hadaspanof~1.1m,asweepof~3540degrees,10degreesoftwist,
and could provide the lift at cruise to support theweightoftheplane.IdealizedL/Dvalueswere
reaching~12attrimmedflight.WecameupwiththedesignshowninFigure13.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure13:Firstattemptatblendedwingbodydesign.

But while in theory, the plane could fly, it had many problems, such as a 4.4% static
margin, and a low maximum spanwise efficiency of ~0.84. Upon seeking Professor Kroo for
advice, we made multiple adjustments to fix these issues. The main things we changed include
lengthening the body and using a reflexed airfoil to help with trimming, and then adding an
additional loft section between the body and the wing to allow for a wing with higher aspect
ratio. Multiple additional small changesweremade,thewingairfoilwaschangedtoMH60,and
the center section was made from amodifiedMH60with15.18%thicknesstoaccommodateall
the parts. The masses of each component wasalsoplacedintoXFLR5totunethepositionofthe
CG and check the resulting stability and trim. The new design has a 14% static margin, ideal
cruise L/D of about 14, and a maximum spanwise efficiency of 0.96. This design is what we
endedupbuildingforourfirstprototypeandisshowninFigure14.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure14:Revisedprototype1.1.2mspanwithacentersectionchordof0.428m,8degreesof
wingwashoutand45degreesofsweep.

[1]
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X48B/index.html
[2]

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/31289/6/Kuntawala_Nimeesha_B_201111_MASc_thesis
.pdf


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure15:Theaerodynamicmodelofourfirstaircraftprototype.

In order to obtain a reasonable approximation of the aircrafts inertia, the various

components of the aircrafts structure and avionics were weighed using a digital scale. The
following table summarizes the mass estimates with the assumption that these measurements
have a relative error of about 1 gram for smaller components and about 10 grams for larger
items.

MassEstimationforOurPrototypeAircraft(g)
BlendedWing/Body(FoamwithBalsaRibs&
CarbonTubes)

315

Avionics

405

3S2200mAhZippyLipoBattery

186

Pixhawk,GPS&Magnetometer,
Telemetry/Transmitter

134

HobbyKing20AESC

30


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

PowerModule

10

DS939MGServos(2)

30

Wiring

15

Propulsion

102

Motor

92

Propeller

10

TotalEstimatedMass(g)

82220

Given this approximate model of the prototype and its distribution of mass, the
centerofgravity is centrally located in the effective body of the blended wing, as shown in
Figure 16. Using body axes and the centerofgravity as the origin,XFLR5estimatedtheinertia
oftheaircraft,whichispresentedinthefollowingtable.

Figure16:Themassdistributionofourprototypeandtheonboardavionics,withthecenterofgravity
highlightedinred.

ParametersforOurPrototypeAircraft
GeneralEstimates
Mass

82220g


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

MainWingArea

2
0.2810.001m

MainWingSpan

1.2000.005m

CenterofGravityEstimates
X_CoG

0.20780.0100m

Y_CoG

00.01m

Z_CoG

0.00270.0100m
InertiaEstimates

I
xx

2
0.018410.00020kg*m

I
yy

2
0.011920.00020kg*m

I
zz

2
0.030310.00020kg*m

I
xz

2
0.0000170.00020kg*m

Note:Sincetheaerodynamicmodelwascreatedfirstinordertodesignourprototypeaircraft,the
uncertaintyinthedimensionalquantitiesisfromapproximatingsmalldefectsintheaircrafts
construction.Theuncertaintyintheinertiaisapproximatedusingerrorpropagationinthemass
distributionestimates.

For the theoretical analysis of the prototype, theaircraftsaerodynamicperformancewas

computed over a sequence of angles of attack for airspeeds ranging from 7 to 15 m/s using a
vortexlattice method in XFLR5. During this analysis, the control surfaces were set to zero
deflection. Figure 17 provides a plot of the lift coefficient versus angle of attack for theaircraft
model that is independent of velocity. The error estimate was approximated by comparing the
XFLR5 results with the research results presented in the paper linked below for ablendedwing
body at Mach 0.11. Unfortunately, the XFLR5 software failed to interpolateC
lvaluesfor angles
of attack above 16, so aroughapproximationforthemaximumliftcoefficientis
C
Lmax 0.91
0.20.

Wisnoeetal.WindTunnelExperimentsandCFDAnalysisofBlendedWingBody(BWB)UnmannedAerial
VehicleatMach0.1andMach0.3.http://www.mtc.edu.eg/ASAT13/pdf/AE13.pdf
1


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure17:Plotoftheliftcoefficientversusangleofattackforourprototypeaircraft.

The analysis also computed drag polars of the aircraft for a range of at different
airspeeds. However, since the parasitic drag calculation by XFLR5 does not account for the
propeller and surface imperfectionsonouraircraft, acorrectionfactorofK
c=1.3wasmultiplied
to the drag coefficient to approximate these additional sources of drag. A plot of C
L versus C
D
that uses the updated drag coefficients is shown in Figure 18, with the data points along each
curve corresponding to increasing angles of attack. Again, the error for these drag polars was
estimated by analyzing the theoretical and experimental results presented in the blended wing
bodyresearchpaper.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure18:Plotofthedragpolarsforouraircraftforthreedifferentairspeeds.

The lift to drag ratio, computed using C

/C
, is plotted versus angle of attack for the
L
D
range of airspeeds in Figure 19, without error estimates. For the error estimation, the L/D plot
presented in the research paper on the blended wing body UAV was used as a basis. Figure 20
displays the lift to drag ratio versus airspeed with the error estimate for a small subset of the
angles of attack. Based on these plots, a theoretical approximation for the maximum lifttodrag
ratiois:
13.52.6foranairspeedof15m/sat8degrees.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure19:Plotofthelifttodragratiooftheprototypeversusangleofattackfordifferent
airspeeds.

Figure20:Plotofthelifttodragratiooftheprototypeovertherangeofairspeeds.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Using the theoretical approximation for steady flight power consumption given above
and the assumption that the efficiency is about 0.41, Figure 21 displays a plot of the power
consumptionestimatesversusvelocityforavarietyofattackangles.

Figure21:Estimatedpowerconsumptionversusvelocityforsmallanglesofattackthat
effectivelycorrespondtolevelflight.

Based on the empirical results of the first test flight of the prototype, the airspeed
corresponding to steady, level flight isapproximately15m/s.From theplotabove,theestimated
power consumption for small angles of attack at this speed ranges from approximately 39W to
66W. Given this range of uncertainty,aroughestimateforthepowerconsumptionatlevelflight
with1is:
5214Watts.

The power consumption for different climb rates of our prototype was approximated
using the equation derived above that relates power required to climb rate. The static thrust on
the motor of the prototype was measured to be 637.88g, which is roughly 6.25 N. Then,
assuming a constant velocity of 14 m/s, the following table lists the estimated power
consumption for various climb rates. Given the large fluctuations observed in the level flight


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

power estimates, the error for this power consumption was approximated as roughly20%ofthe
estimatedvalue.

PowerConsumptionEstimatesforDifferentClimbRatesof
thePrototype
ClimbRate(m/s)

EstimatedPowerConsumption
(Watts)

79.44416.000

71.38714.300

63.33112.700

55.27411.000

To obtain estimates of the stability and control derivativesforourprototypeaircraft,two

different stability simulations were performed in XFLR5. The first simulation involved
deflecting the aircrafts control surfaces as ailerons, and the second simulation involved
deflecting these surfaces as an elevator. The analyses focused on incrementally deflecting the
control surfaces such that the stability derivatives could be computed for trim conditions in
response to the deflection. Also, in performing these stability analyses, the neutral point is
calculated to be about: x
np 0.247 m. Thus, with x
cg 0.2078 m and the mean aerodynamic
chordbeingapproximately0.275m,thestaticmarginoftheprototypeisabout14.25%.

The resulting stability and control derivatives are summarized in the following two
tables. However, as mentioned before,XFLR5assumesaninviscidanalysiswhencomputingthe
stability response of the aircraft model. Therefore, we can expect that a considerable amount of
errorisincorporatedinto theapproximatedstabilityderivatives.Toestimatethiserror,theresults
of thesimulationswereroughly comparedwithboth thetypicalvaluesinBlakelocksbookanda
small subset of stability derivatives computed by a research team on the AC20.30, a blended
wing body modelaircraft.2Althoughtherearecertainlysomesignificantdifferencesbetweenour
model and these other aircraft, some of the reported values arewithina50%errormarginofthe
estimated derivatives. Thus, similar to the Bixler 3 model, a rough estimate for the error of the
stabilityandcontrolderivativesoftheprototypeaircraftis50%oftheestimatedvalue.

Neubacher,Christoph.FlightDynamicInvestigationsofaBlendedWingBodyAircraft.
http://www.fzt.hawhamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextNeubacher.pdf
2


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Note:Inordertolistallofthederivativesabove,theerrorestimatesarenotexplicitlywritten,
buttheyareapproximatedas50%oftheestimatedvalue.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Note:Inordertolistallofthederivativesabove,theerrorestimatesarenotexplicitlywritten,
buttheyareapproximatedas50%oftheestimatedvalue.

Similar to the Bixler 3 model, the stability analysis in XFLR5 of our prototype also
computes the eigenvalues that correspond to the different modes of flight for a particular trim
condition. These eigenvalues can then be used to approximate thefrequencyanddampingratios
of the longitudinal and lateral aircraft modes as a function of the airspeed. After analyzing the
two types of deflections available for our aircraft prototype, the results are outlined in the two
tables below. By comparing the datawithotheraircraftexamplesgiveninBlakelockstextbook,
a rough approximation for the error estimate is 25% of the estimated values. Also, for the two
types of deflections/gains, the phugoid, short period and dutch roll modes are underdamped,
whereas the rolldamping mode is critically damped. However, the simulated results show the


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

phugoid mode becoming unstable for particular airspeeds that correspondtospecificdeflections

of the control surfaces. Although this possible instability occurs in aslowresponseflightmode,
itisdefinitelysomethingtoconsiderforthefuturedevelopmentoftheautopilotcontrollaw.

*Notethatthespiralmodeisinherentlyunstable,soiseffectivelydrivingthesystem,not
damping.Also,thephugoidmodebecomesunstableforalargerailerondeflection/gain.

As shown in the table for aileron deflections, the phugoid mode becomes unstable with
increasing frequency for smaller airspeeds. However, as the speed decreases, the damping ratio
of the short period increases while its frequency decreases. The rollsubsidence mode remains
critically damped for all airspeeds, but its frequency decreases as the speed decreases. Finally,
boththefrequencyandofthedutchrollmodeincreasefordecreasingairspeeds.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*Notethatthespiralmodeisinherentlyunstable,soiseffectivelydrivingthesystem,not
damping.Also,thephugoidmodeisontheedgeofstabilityinthatdifferentelevator
deflections/gainseitherresultinstabilityorinstability.

Basedonthetableforelevatordeflections,thephugoidmodebecomesunstablewith
largerfrequencyastheairspeeddecreases.Forincreasingspeeds,thedampingratiooftheshort
periodmodedecreaseswhileitsfrequencyincreases.However,bothandthefrequencyofthe
dutchrollmodedecreaseforlargerspeeds.Finally,therollsubsidencemoderemainscritically
dampedforallairspeeds,butitsfrequencyincreasesastheairspeedisincreased.

The table belowsummarizes theelectromechanicalcomponentsofourplanespropulsive

system.Again,somepropertiesaredefaultvaluesstoredinMotoCalc.

Ourplanespropulsivesystem
Motor

Turnigy2836950kV

950rpm/V,0.07
,70g

Propeller

GraupnerCAMFolder(approximate) 9x5,CP=1.81,CT=0.995

Battery

Variousbrands

3SLiPo,11.1V,2200mAh

Speedcontrol

HobbyKing

20A,30g

At maximum throttle, the propulsive system has the characteristics shown in Figure 22.
The thrust decreasesfrom25oz(6.9N)whentheplaneisstationarytoabout6oz(1.7N)whenthe


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

airspeed reaches about 33mph (15m/s). When the airspeed is low, the propeller has a relatively
constant RPM of about 9070. However, when the plane flies faster than about 15mph (6.7m/s),
the propeller has to rotate faster. Compared to Bixler 3s propulsive system, our plane has a
slightlylesspowerfulandslowermotor.

Figure22:Inflightanalysisofthrust(red)andRPM(blue)againstairspeedatmaximumthrottle


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Task3:Updatethemissionplan/strategy
ContributingMembers:KyleJulian

One approach to creating good trajectories for the mission is to create a series of
waypoints through which you want to fly. In addition, you can specify the heading and bank
angle you want to have when you fly through that waypoint, which will ensure that you are
positioned well to go towards the next waypoint. These waypoints can be positionedaroundthe
pylons in such a way to ensure that you fly around the two pylonstwiceandthenreturnbackto
thefinishline.
To optimize the path taken to these waypoints, I modeled this problem as Markov
decision process with stochastic transitions. An MDP uses dynamic programming to define a
mapping of states to actions called the policy. For every MDP, there are four key components:
thestates,theactions,therewards,andthetransitionfunction.
Our state space has six dimensions. The dimensions specific to our vehicle were chosen
to have boundaries that represented theperformanceofourvehicle.By lookingatflightdata,we
can see that our speeds can range from 1020 m/s and can achieve bank angles of at least 30
2
degrees. With a theoretical maximum C
of about 0.75, wing area of 0.281m
, and a mass of
L
0.822 kg, we may be able to achieve level banking up to 50 degrees, but 30 degrees maximum
bankingisasafeapproximationforourrealvehicle.Thestatedimensionsare:
Rangetowaypoint(R):0to300meters
Directiontowaypointrelativetovehicleheading( ):180to180degrees
Waypointheadingrelativetovehicleheading( ):180to180degrees
Vehiclespeed(V):10to20m/s
Bankangle( ):30to30degrees
Waypointbankangle( T ):30to30degrees
We define our action space to have five possible actions. The actions will be passed to
the controller which will try to follow the command like a step input. We set the selection of
actions to occur 5 times per second, which drives the values of these actions to be something
that could be achievable by the real system. Further testing will ensure that these values
accuratelymodelthetrackingabilityoftheflightcontroller.Theactionsare:
Increasebankangleby4degrees
Decreasebankangleby4degrees
Increasespeedby0.7m/s
Decreasespeedby0.7m/s
Donothing
Next, we define a simple reward policy that gives a penalty of 1.0 whenever the
aircrafts current state is not within some tolerance of the waypoint and its specified angles,
which we call the goal state. This encourages the aircraft to choose actions that will move it


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

towards the goal state. We also give small penalties to theaircraftwhenbanking toencourageit
toflystraightwhenpossible.
Finally, the transition model follows a stochastic policy. For the nominal case, the next
state is calculated by incrementing the bank angle or speed of the aircraft due to the action and
then propagating the trajectory by the time step of 0.2 seconds. The trajectory assumesthatthe
aircraft follows a steady level bank throughout the trajectory. However, it is unlikely that the
aircraft will follow that exact trajectory, so offnominal cases are also calculated. Theses cases
vary the bank angle and speed by a small amount and then recalculate the next state. Thus, the
transition function is stochastic with the largest probability given to the nominal trajectory and
smallerprobabilitiesgiventotheoffnominalcases.
We used Discrete Value Iteration with finite horizon to solve this problem. The state
space is discretized into a finite set of states. A Q matrix, which represents the cost of taking
action
a in state
s
, is used with dynamic programming to compute iteratively the accumulated
costaccordingtotheBellmanequation.

Qi+1(s, a) = R(s, a) + P (s|s, a)* maxaAQi(s, a)

s

The algorithm was implemented in Julia and solved with the package
DiscreteValueIteration.jl, which was written by Professor Kochenderfers lab at Stanford. The
algorithm converges in a couple of hours and produces a table of the Q values for each of the
discrete stateaction pairs. Actions are chosen for any continuous state in the domain by
interpolating the Q values between the neighboring states and taking the action that gives the
maximum Q value. Afteriteratingforabout150valueupdates,thepolicyconverges.Thefigure
below shows the learned policy with the vehicle located at(0,0)andtravelinginthedirectionof
the positive xaxis. The color at each point in the map represents the bestactionifthewaypoint
were located at that point. For thisplot,the waypointheadingwassetto45degreeswithabank
angle of 30 degrees, and the vehicle is traveling at 14 m/s with abankangle of0degrees.The
dark red regions indicate increasing bank angle, while dark blue regions indicate thebestaction
is to decrease the bank angle.Thepolicyfollowstheconventionofpositivebankanglesresult in
left turns. The light blue regions represent areas where speeding up is the optimal action, and
pink represents regions where slowing down is the optimal action. If no action shouldbetaken,
thecolorwillbewhite.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure23:Policyheatmapoverpossiblewaypointpositions

Looking at the policy plot reveals some key information about how the MDP makes
decisions. The light blueinfrontofthevehicleintuitivelymakessense,becauseiftheywaypoint
is in front of you and pretty far away, you want to speed up and get there quickly. The pink
region directly in front of the vehiclemeansthatifthewaypointisverycloseto you, you should
slow down to prepare to bank. In addition, slowing down means that your trajectory should be
more accurate because actions are chosen at fixed time intervals, so slowing downs means you
have more control over your location. This helps to ensure that you dont accidentally miss a
waypoint. The dark red and blue regions represent the boundary between turning left orrightto
get to the waypoint in the shortest time with the highest probability. This boundary is hard to
predictbutveryimportantinordertoensurethatthevehicleismakingoptimaldecisions.
We simulated the policy in Julia by setting waypoints around the pylons and choosing
actions by interpolating Q values between discretized states and choosing the action with the
maximum Q value. The results show that following this optimized banking and accelerating
policy, we can complete the course in 89 seconds. Figure 24 below shows our flight path
following the policy under ideal conditions (so no noise, wind gusts, etc.) The points in the
trajectory are color coded to show the speed at the point
with blue being theslowestandredthe
fastest.Thegreen circlesrepresent the desiredwaypointsusedto maneuveraroundthe redcirclepylons.
Around the first pylon, the waypoint headings were 45 or 135 degrees withtarget bankangles of 30
degrees, if you define positive bank angles to turn to the left. The waypointsaroundthe second pylon
haveheadingsof 0 or 180 degrees with bankangles againof 30degrees. Thelastwaypointissettobe
far behind the finish line to ensure that the vehicle speeds across the finish line without worrying too
muchaboutpreciselyflyingthroughaspecificpointbeforefinishing.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure24:Simulationwithoutnoiseintransitions

However, the true test of this model will be to add noise around the expected levels of
noise present in real flight. This noise can be modeled by adding Gaussian noise to each of the
state variables, besides the target bank angle. Figure 25 shows such a plot. Error factors were
sampled from Gaussian distributions and added to the states bank angle, range, and heading.
The Gaussians were 0 mean with standard deviations of 3 deg, 5 meters, 2 deg for bank angle,
range, and heading respectively. The model is able to compensate for this considerableamount
ofnoiseandonlyadds5.6secondsofflighttime.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure25:Simulationwithnoisytransitions

Ideally,wewouldbeabletostorethetableonthePixhawksotheautopilotcoulddotable
lookups in real time. However, the table occupies 280mb inmemory,sothisisinfeasiblegiven
the hardware of the Pixhawk. But this is actually not too much of a problem because we can
compress the table usingneuralnetworks,whicharegreatglobalfunctionapproximators.Neural
networks were used to compress the QtableofACASXubyafactorofoverathousandwithout
loss in performance. The results show that large Q tables can be accurately represented by a
network with only a few thousand parameters.Thus,insteadofstoringthetableonthePixhawk,
we only need to store the parameters of the neural network, which would be in the kilobytes
range. This would be small enoughfor thePixhawkto computeoptimalactionsonlinefollowing
therobust,optimizedMDPpolicy.
The optimization algorithm will need to be tunedtoproducepoliciesthatworkwellwith
the actual aircraft and its abilities and limitations. Futureiterationsofouraircraft mayseelarger
control surfaces for greater maneuverability, vertical stabilizers, different body profiles, etc. It
will be very important to make sure we are able to achieve changes in bank angle and speed at
the rate the simulation expects so that the real vehicle performs as well as the simulation. The
simulation also assumes coordinated turn, which is not very accurate for a flying wing.
Therefore, the bank dynamics may need to be updated as we test the autopilot and see how the
vehicleperformswhendifferentbankanglesareheldduringlevelturnsatvariousspeeds.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Task4:Design,constructandflyyourownaircraft
ContributingMembers:FrankFan,ShawnGao,JohnMcNelly,JonSchut

Construction:

The prototype aircraft is constructed from R10 pink insulation foam due to its light
weight and thetheoreticaleaseofmanufacturingitofferedforcomplextaperedairfoilsincluding
washout. The prototype aircraft consists of a large main payload bay centered between two
loftedwingsections,eachofwhichconnectstoasmalleroutboardwingsection.
Significant difficultieswereencounteredduringtheconstructionoftheaircraft,almostall
of which stemmed from the CNC hot wire foam cutters inability to cut drasticallysweptwings
(such as the outboard wings on the prototype aircraft) and shapes with large angles (suchasthe
lofted airfoil sections on either side of the payload bay). These problems were eventually
overcome through many hours of trial and error with the foam cutter, and through the use of
creative techniques to circumvent the foam cutters limitations. The drastically swept outboard
wings were cut by projecting the coordinates of their airfoil sections onto a 45 plane, and then
running cuts for the transformed airfoil coordinates in two sections one fortheoutboard halfof
the outboard wings, and one for the inboard half of the outboard wings. These unswept wings
with transformed airfoil coordinates were then cut down to shape in order to reproduce the
original intended swept wing design. The lofted airfoil sections were manufactured in two
pieces, as was the center payload section. Significant time was spentreshapingthefoampieces
with sandpaper, a dremel tool, and an xacto knife after they came off of the foam cutter,
yieldinganendresultthatwasrelativelyclosetotheoriginaldesignparameters.
The internal structure of the central payload section consists of two 10mm carbon fiber
tubes running widthwise through the center payload section, along with 2.5mm light ply
reinforcement on either sideofthesectionanda2.5mmlightplyfirewallstructureatthefrontof
the aircraft. The payload bay is segmented intotwosections,suchthatboth10mmcarbontubes
are embedded in the foam, and the forward firewall section is linked to theforwardcarbontube
such that the majority of the stress from the motoristransferreddirectlytotheinternalstructure
of the aircraft, as opposed to stressing the relatively thinwalloffoamatthefrontofthepayload
bay. This firewall structure performed admirably during early test flights, producing no
vibration and surviving multiple hard nosefirst landings. Eventually, a hard nosefirst crash
caused by an incident with a lowflying aircraft from another team caused the firewall to
delaminate from the foam at the front of the payload bay and splinter this issue seemed to
primarily have been caused by the lack of bond strength betweenthehotglueusedtomountthe
firewall and the pink foam. The firewall structure will be reinforced (lightening cutoutswillbe
minimized)andmountedwithepoxyforthenextaircraftiteration.
The two outboard wing sections are reinforced with a 10mm x 0.8mm carbon strip
oriented vertically and embedded inthewingrunningdownitslengthwithepoxy. Inadditionto


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

reducing flex in the outboard wing sections, this same carbon strip reinforces the connection
betweentheoutboardwingsandtheloftedairfoilsectionsoneithersideofthemainpayloadbay.
Early glide tests and hard landings during unpowered testing proved that hot glue was
insufficient for joining the outboard wings to the lofted airfoil sections, and epoxy was used
instead. No further problems have yet been encountered with the outboard wings separating
fromthemainstructureoftheaircraft.
Due tothedifficultyof embeddingservos nearthewingtipsoftheoutboardwingsections
due to the thinness of the foam in those areas, the decision was made to use fullspan elevons,
with servos mounted in the inboard / mid sections of the outboard wings. Theelevonswerecut
based on past experience and general intuition to be around25%chord,withmechanicalthrows
adjustedasnecessarytomaintaincontrollability.

Figure26:Completedfirstprototype.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Performance:

CalculatingcruiseL/Dfromexperimentaldata:
We tried to find the L/D of the trimmed aircraft by finding theglideangleoftheaircraft
when using no throttle input and no extra elevator settings. Assuming a steady state, the L/D
ratio can be foundbydividingthedistanceoftheglidebythechangeinaltitudeduringtheglide.
As in the first problem set, altitude vs. distance and altitude vs.timeareplotted.Next,usingthe
timestamps from the flight log, the glide regions were foundontheplots.Theplotsthatresulted
are shown in Figures 27 and 30. The red lines show the beginning of the glides and the black
linesshowtheendoftheglides.

Figure27:Markingglideregions.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

nd
Figure28:Markingglideregions(2
flight).

The change in distance divided by the change in altitude was found for each of the
markedregions.TheresultingL/Dratiosare5,6,8,10,19(rounded),whichyieldsanaverageof
~10 with a standard deviation of 5. Clearly, there is huge variation in the values of calculated
L/D, which suggests that the glide environment and settings werenotwellcontrolled.Ifwetake
5 and 19 to be outliers, we end up obtaining a trimmed cruise L/D ratio of 8 with a standard
deviation of 2. This seems a little more reasonable, because it is a value that the simulations
showed could be reached with changes in the angle of attack at trim, something that is
determinedrelativelysensitivelybytheplacementoftheCG.CruiseL/D:
8,std=2.

Several level flight tests have been performed to experimentally determine the power
consumption.The altitude of the plane is maintained low at about 22m so the pilot is able to
visually check and maintain the altitude and the attitude. The realtime current drawn from the
battery pack and the voltage are recorded by Pixhawk and plotted in Figure 29. Notice the
voltage starts at about 12.4V and drops slowly to about 11.4V, which is still above thenominal
voltage of a threecell lithiumion batterypack.Thelevel flighttestcorrespondstothetimespan
approximately from 109s to 128s in the figures. Notice the current is relatively constant during
this period. The overall power consumption is simply the product of the voltage andthecurrent


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

and is averaged over the entire level flight period. It turns out to be about
57W
, which is
relativelyconsistentwiththepredictedrangeoftheoreticalvaluesforpowerconsumption.

Figure29:Batterycurrentandvoltagehistory.Reddashedlinesindicatethelevelflightsection

Maximumliftcoefficientisobtainedatthevergeofstalling:

C L,max =

2
1
2 V stallSref

2
1
2 V stallSref

Several stall tests are performed to measure CL_max. The pilot first pulls the plane to a
reasonably high altitude to leave some space for it to dropbeforeitrecovers fromstalling.Then
the pilot gradually reduces the speed. According totheformulaabove, whenVdecreasesuntilit
reaches V_stall, CL is going to increase. However, for our plane, it is very difficult to make it
stall when the speed is low. Therefore we try to stall the plane at a relatively higher speed (but
lower than ournormalcruisespeed)bycuttingthrottleinputandpitchingtheplaneup.Whenthe
plane stalls, there is asuddendecreaseinaltitude,whichwillbenoticedbypeopleonthe ground
and recorded manually. ItwillalsobecrosscheckedwithaltitudedatafromPixhawk.Thespeed
and the altitude profile of a decent stall test is shown in Figure 30. The corresponding lift
coefficients are shown in Figure 31. The stall speed is about
13m/s
. The corresponding
maximum lift coefficient is about
0.3 when the angleofattackisabout11degrees.Thisvalueis
way below the theoretical prediction in Task 2. Part of thereasonforthisdiscrepancyis that we
arenotabletoperformanidealstalltestbydecreasingspeedgraduallytostallspeed.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure30:Speed,altitudeandthrottlelevelduringstalltest.

Figure31:Liftcoefficientsduringstalltest


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Task5:Closingcontrolloops
ContributingMembers:RyanWilliams

There are a few primary decisions that have to be made before getting into the actual
control loop design. Firstly, by assuming straight and level flight we treat small angles for
banking, yawing, pitching, along with small changes to throttle, elevator, and rudder as
perturbational quantities. The straight and level flight assumption allows us to henceforth
decouple the longitudinal and lateraldirectional dynamics of the aircraft, which fortheBixler3
is a reasonable assumption due to its traditional airframe structure and axes of symmetry
(moments of inertia). For our actual competitive design, the blended body aircraft, coupling
occurs in the dynamics, and the model for control becomes more complicated. The notion of
controlfortheblendedbodywingwilloccurinlateranalysisanddiscussion.
The first primary decision that needs to be made for controlling longitudinal motion of
the aircraft is to decide whether to control the speed of the aircraft with the throttle or with the
elevator, and similarly, whether to control the pitch of the aircraft with the throttle or the
elevator. Pilots around the world have different preferences when it comes to maneuvering
aircraft, but typically it is seen as more intuitive to control pitch with elevator. However, as a
controls engineer, one must first look at the plant and the specific transfer functionstoseewhat
thebestmethodofcontrolisanddesignaccordingly.
The control strategy includes utilizing successive loop closure techniques to first close
the loop around speed, then to close the loop around pitch, and finally to close the loop around
altitude. Since the problem of control is to maintain a certain heading while at fixed speed and
altitude, the yaw or heading of the aircraft can be controlled separately as a result of the
decoupling between longitudinal and lateral dynamics. Additionally, since wewantourspeedto
be fixed, our commanded perturbational speed is desired to be 0. Thus, this problem involves
twoindependentcontrolloops.Thestepsfordesignarelaidoutasfollows:
Step1)Closingthespeedcontrolloopwiththeory
As mentioned above, it is necessary to choose what we use to control the speed of our
aircraft. In general, both elevator deflection and throttle have an impact on speed. But from a
controls standpoint, it may be easier to control speed with one and not the other, and this
decision is usually made with simplicity in mind. To fully understand what to choose, we must
firstlookattheplantofoursystem,whichcanbedoneusingRootLocustechniques.
Using the dimensionless stability derivatives listed in Task 2 (and found from
simulation), we first model our plant in statespace form so that we may find the correlation
between our control inputs and their effects onourdesiredoutput:inthiscasespeed. Following


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

traditional statespace setup, we have x = Ax + Bu and y = C x + Du , where x represents our

statevectorandurepresentsourcontrolinputs:

x= [uqh]

u= [et]

Where u is thenormalizedvelocityvectoroftheaircraftwithanominalspeed u0 =14.7meters

per second. This value was chosen as a reasonable nominal velocity value, and was used in the
calculations of the stability derivatives in our simulation software. is the angle of attack, q is
the pitch rate of the aircraft measured in rads per second, is the pitch of the aircraft, and h is
the altitude. The vector u represents the control inputs in which e is the elevator deflection
angle in radians, and t is the throttle input as a perturbation from nominal throttle values at
steady state. From the completed aircraft analysis in task 2 for theBixler3,ourplant matrixA,
andcontrolinputmatrixBwerefound:
A =
0.02360.328609.81000
1.336910.642813.104900
0.158613.894113.093400
001.000000
014.6803014.68030

B= 0.17030.8573
14.71350
185.00970
00
00


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Step2)Closingallotherloops
Nowtheplantdynamicscanbeanalyzedwithrootlocustechniques:

Figure32:RootLocusofBixler3


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Fromtherootlocusplotsofoursystemabove,itisapparentthatcontrollingspeedu
withthrottledtandpitch withelevatorde.Withthisdecisioninplace,wecannow
proceedtocloseourloops.Sparingthedetailedcontrolanalysis,ourmodelsimulationusing
Simulinktakesthefollowingformforlongitudinalmotion:

Figure33:Simulationforaunitstepinput

After completing the controller synthesis, it was found that simple constant proportional
gains were capable of successfully closing the control loops on speed (using K1), pitch (using
K_t),andheight(usingK_h).Thesetheoreticalgainvaluesare:
K1=5.95
K_t=1
K_h=0.029

Using these gains, favorable responses to a unit step command in height (h_c) were
found.Theoverallstepresponsedataforresultingheightincludes:
RiseTime:1.6463s
SettlingTime:3.9439s
SettlingMin:0.9024
SettlingMax:1.0284


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Overshoot:2.8363
Undershoot:62.6028
Peak:1.0284
PeakTime:5.20s

Figure34:SimulationResults
Here we see that a unit step command in height causes the elevators to deflect upwards.
This first has the effect of causing both speed and height decreases, but throttle is theninputted
to make up for this and the aircraft then startstorecoverandrisetoitscommandedheightwhile
regaining velocity. The control inputs are not too strenuous, so it seems that this design, in
theory, bodes well. However, further optimization of our controller can occur using LQR
methods.Thiswillbetestedinlaterdesigns.
The previous theoretical analysis shows thatcertainproportionalgainchoicescanindeed
result in favorable response characteristics for the Bixler 3. So how does all of this analysis
compare with experimental design techniques? The answer is that the theoretical results give a
good starting point for gain choices: they reveal that the Bixler can in fact be controlled with
simple proportional gains, and the results also give good insight into the responseofthecraftto


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

step commands in height while trying to maintain a constant speed (in this case, the reference
speed was 0). Using thisknowledge,simplegainsarechosenandimplementedforthesoftware,
with the loops looking very much similar to that of the simulation. Assuming that this hasbeen
completed properly (the exact methods will be discussed later), the next step is simply to close
the loop on heading (yaw) with a simple control law. From a high level perspective, after the
yaw loop is closed, theaircraftshouldbeabletomaintainaconstantheading,altitude,andspeed
forastepcommandinheight.
ControlStrategy
For the purposes of thisreport,weare requiredtoflytheaircraftinR/Cmode,makesure
it is straight and level, and then switch into autonomous mode in such a way that our aircraftis
abletomaintainheading,altitude,andairspeed.Todoso,aparticularcontrolstrategyisdesired.

Essentially, theaircraftmustfirstreaditsaltitude.Ifitiswithinacertainaltituderangeof
thedesiredaltitude,thenwearehappy.Ifnot,theaircraftshouldthendeflectitselevatorsinsuch
a waytoreducethiserrorin altitude.Thisisdonewithaproportionalgainandnegativefeedback
applied to the altitude error. The resultingquantityisthenfedintotheelevatorservosinorderto
drive them to reduce the error, withrespecttoanominaltrimelevator deflectionquantity. Ifthe
yaw or heading is in the desired direction,thenagainwearehappy!Ifnot,thentheaircraftmust
deflect its rudder by dr to reduce this error. This can be completed by a simple proportional
gain or by the use of a simple PD controller. Similarly, the speed iscontrolledbythethrottle.If
the aircraft reads thatitisnot travelingatthedesiredspeed,thenthisspeederrorismultipliedby
a gain and added to a nominal level of throttle, such that a resulting perturbational amount of
throttle dt will correct any speed errors once fed into the motor. All of this is assumed to be
occurring at level flight, but we cant be so sure. So why not throw on another controller to
ensure that perturbations in aircraft roll are null? This is exactly what we do by applying yet
another simple PD controller torollerror(inwhichthedesiredrollandrollratearebothzerofor
thiscase).

In order to achieve this level of control, our aircraft must first save the aircraft settings
such as heading, altitude, and speed from its last moments of steady, level flight in R/C mode,
and carry these values into autonomous mode as the desired settings. This is relatively
straightforward, as all that is required is to set a few parameters equal to the current yaw,
altitude, and speed and make these values the desired values to be fed into the controller. Once
these settings are saved, the aircraft must compare the desired settings to its current settings (or
state) and apply a gain such that the error between desired and actual goes to zero in finite
(ideally small and without too much oscillation) time. The gains required have already been
proven to be simple proportional controllers the next step is tuning them. Some of the


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

challenges that separates the theory and the actual controller specs are limitations both that of
the onboard actuators and those of the control surfaces. In this particular case, our servo inputs
are limited to a range between 1 and 1 for the control surfaces and between 0 and 1 for the
throttle. Normalization of our controllers to meet this range of values will require tuning and
adjustment. Luckily, it is part of the control design strategy to take advantage of
QGroundControls ability to modify control gains literally on the fly. This ability makestesting
and correction much more friendly and streamlined to iterative design techniques. Another
challenge that will later be addressedandismentionedinlateranalysis isthatof thepolarization
of angles duetosingularityswitchesbetweenpiandpiradianswhenreadingorientationvalues
forroll,pitch,andyaw.Asimplefixforthiswillbetoconvertthesevaluestoarangefrom0and
2pi,butthisisntnecessarytosolveourcurrentproblem.

After addressing the above problems, applying the mentioned control strategy, and
iteratingthroughourgains,ourcontrollertakesthefollowingform:

Gains:

PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_ROLL_PGAIN,0.05f);
Roll
Pgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_ROLL_DGAIN,1.0f);
Roll
Dgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_YAW_PGAIN,1.0f);
Yaw
Pgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_YAW_DGAIN,1.0f);
Yaw
Dgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_PITCH_PGAIN,1.0f);PitchPgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_PITCH_DGAIN,1.0f);PitchDgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_ALT_PGAIN,0.05f);
Altitude
Pgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_ALT_DGAIN,1.0f);
Altitude
Dgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_THRT_PGAIN,0.1f);ThrottlePgain
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_ALT_BOUND,1.0f);Altitudeerrorbounds
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_ALT_DES,71.0f);Initializations
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_SPEEDU_DES,14.0f);Initializations
PARAM_DEFINE_FLOAT(AAH_PITCH_TRIM,0.05f);

ControlArchitecture:

//Maintainroll
pdRollCorrection=aah_parameters.proportional_roll_gain*(roll_desiredroll)+
aah_parameters.derivative_roll_gain*(rollrate_desiredroll_rate)+aileron_trimmed;

//Maintainyaw
pdYawCorrection=aah_parameters.proportional_yaw_gain*(yaw_desiredyaw)+
aah_parameters.derivative_yaw_gain*(yawrate_desiredyaw_rate)+rudder_trimmed;

//Pathfollowing(waypoint)
/*pdYawCorrection=aah_parameters.proportional_heading_gain*(atan((position_N
position_waypoint_N)/(position_Eposition_waypoint_E))


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

*yaw+atan(speed_body_v/speed_body_u));*///Tobeappliedlater

//Maintainspeed
ThrottleCorrection=aah_parameters.proportional_throttle_gain*
(aah_parameters.speed_desired_uspeed_body_u)+throttle_trimmed;

//Controlaltitude+maintainpitch
if(position_D_baro<=(aah_parameters.altitude_desiredaah_parameters.altitude_bound)||
position_D_baro>=(aah_parameters.altitude_desired+aah_parameters.altitude_bound)){

pitch_desired=aah_parameters.proportional_altitude_gain*(aah_parameters.altitude_desired
position_D_baro)+aah_parameters.pitch_trimmed;
PitchCorrection=aah_parameters.proportional_pitch_gain*(pitch_desiredpitch)+
elevator_trimmed;

}else{

pitch_desired=aah_parameters.pitch_trimmed;//pitch_trimmed?Thenusepitch_trimmed
whencomputingerror(lineaboveandbelow)
PitchCorrection=aah_parameters.proportional_pitch_gain*(pitch_desiredpitch)+
aah_parameters.derivative_pitch_gain*(pitchrate_desiredpitch_rate)+elevator_trimmed;

}
//Doboundscheckingtokeeptherollcorrectionwithinthe1..1limitsoftheservooutput
if(pdRollCorrection>1.0f){
pdRollCorrection=1.0f;
}elseif(pdRollCorrection<1.0f){
pdRollCorrection=1.0f;
}
if(pdYawCorrection>1.0f){
pdYawCorrection=1.0f;
}elseif(pdYawCorrection<1.0f){
pdYawCorrection=1.0f;
}
/*if(pdPitchCorrection>1.0f){
pdPitchCorrection=1.0f;
}elseif(pdPitchCorrection<1.0f){
pdPitchCorrection=1.0f;
}*/
if(PitchCorrection>1.0f){
PitchCorrection=1.0f;
}elseif(PitchCorrection<1.0f){
PitchCorrection=1.0f;
}
if(ThrottleCorrection>1.0f){


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

ThrottleCorrection=1.0f;
}elseif(ThrottleCorrection<0.0f){
ThrottleCorrection=0.0f;
}

ENDARCHITECTURE

The above architecture yields the following experimental results for maintaining speed,
altitude, and heading. Eachresultisannotatedaccordingly.Notethattheflightpath distancesare
simply magnitudes calculated by using distances between longitudinal and lateral coordinates.
These are then converted intodistancestoprovethateachtestwastakenoveratleast100meters
offield.

ExperimentalResults

Autonomousflight#1

Figure35:Firstautonomousflight


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Here we see the airplane being flown in R/C mode to an altitude of approximately35m
above Lake Lagunita. Autonomous flight then begins around 127 seconds of flight time. Once
the autonomous flight is active, the altitude is shown to remain constant with slight noise and
oscillation. Similarly, heading remains surprisingly constant and velocity has slight fluctuations
around 10 m/s. The overall flight path from a top viewisshowninthegraphbelowinlongitude
vs latitude coordinates that have been zeroed relative to starting position and converted to
distance in meters. The height vs distance is shown to be nicely constant with slight fluctuation
around35meters.Overall,thiswasaverysuccessfultestforourcontroller!

Figure36:Pathforfirstautonomousflight

In Figure 36 we see that autonomous flight occurs aswewraptheaircraft aroundtoface

us sothatitsheadingistowardsourlocation.Intheflightpath plot,theautonomousflightbegins
at thepoint(58,50)andendsat(8,20).Thispathisalsorepresentedbythelevelportionofthe
altitude plot in Figure 36. The aircraft remains relatively level with expected perturbations
aroundthedesiredaltitudeinput.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Autonomousflight#2

Figure37:Secondautonomousflightdata


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure38:Secondautonomousflightpath
In autonomousflightnumber2,weseearelativelyconstantheading,altitude,andground
speed! The speed fluctuates around 10 m/s here, while thealtitudefluctuatesbetween36and40
metersabovelakelag.Thiswasyetanothersuccessfultest!
Autonomousflight#3


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Figure38:Thirdautonomousflightdata

Figure39:Thirdautonomousflightpath


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

For autonomous flight number 3, the plane is switched into autonomous mode at 189
seconds flight time and lasts for about 5 seconds, ending at approximately194secondsofflight
time. Wenoticethatduring thistime,theaircrafttraveledapproximately100meters,giveortake
a few. During this time span we also notice a relatively linear heading with some slight
perturbations, a ground speed fluctuating around16m/s,andanaltitudefluctuatingaround34m
above lake lag. At about a ground distance of100meters,thethirdtestisthenbroughtbackinto
R/Cmode,whichisapparentfromthesweepintheflightpathandtheslightdropinaltitude.
Autonomousflight#4

Figure40:Fourthautonomousflightdata
Autonomous flight number 4 shows similar results to the previous tests. Here we see
some noisy height and yaw, which may be due to some strong gusts of wind due to flying
conditions becoming unfavorable. However, the data still yields nice steady responses, and
heightfluctuationsarewithinreason.Ideally,wecanimproveontheresponseofthesystemeven
further by tuning the gains of Bixler for both yaw and height, and possible by adding some
damping to error in climb rate to reduce noise. However, in the future, more of our teams
resources will be focused on our actual design for the blended body aircraft. We are optimistic
that our control laws will prove as effective as they appear to be for the Bixler. Overthesefour
tests, our gains were tuned to reduce error intheaircraftsabilitytomaintaina constantaltitude,


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

heading, and velocity. Overall, I believe our results show a reasonable margin of success after
severaliterations.


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

Task6:GoalsandPlanofAction
ContributingMembers:RyanWilliams

i) Now that we have successfully designed,built,andtestedouraircraft,wewillbeginto

move into the iteration and optimization phase of design. As a team we are looking forward to
making further improvements on the performance of the blended body aircraft. Team members
will be breaking off into critical thinking teams in order to discuss flight strategy plans,
controller optimization and performance, and aerodynamics performance. We are hoping to
improve our structural design to make the craft more maneuverable so that higher banking and
faster turns can be achieved. The controls team is working to improve the performance by
achieving minimum settling time to discrete step responses that they will be expecting fromthe
trajectory optimization team. The trajectory optimization team is working on developing
advanced methods for introducing a feasible neural network design that can feed the controller
optimizedstepinputs.Overall,asateamwearelookingforwardtothecompetition!

RemainingSchedule:

4/28

Meeting#6/Pset#2due:Completedscheme#2software

4/29

FlightTest#2:testdscheme#2software

5/2

Meeting#7:TransfercontrolsystemfromBixlertodscheme#2

5/5

Meeting#8/FlightTestingandBasicID

5/6

FlightTest#3:Starttuningandoptimizing

5/9

Meeting#9:Prepareforprogressreviewandpset#3

5/10

TeamProgressReview#2(Class)

5/12

Meeting#10:Workonstrategyandpathdesign

5/13

FlightTest#4:Checkpathoptimization

5/16

Meeting#11:WorkonPset3andprepareforProgress#3

5/17

TeamProgressReview#3(Class):FinalstrategiesandDesigns
set

5/19

Meeting#12/PSet#3due:Testing/workonfinalproject


ProblemSet#2
4/28/2016

AA241XTeam2
Fregata

5/20

FlightTest#5:Testing/workonfinalproject

5/23

Meeting#13:Testing/workonfinalproject

5/26

Meeting#14:Testing/workonfinalproject

5/27

FlightTest#6:Testing/workonfinalproject

5/30

FinalMeeting

6/13 InitialRoundFlyoffs!
6/7

FinalRoundFlyoffs

6/8

FinalReportsDue

6/10

GradesDue

ii) After consulting with MattandProfessorKrooaboutthevariousdesignchallengesof

building a flying wing we decided to scrap our original design and go with a blended wing
design! This is primarily because our original design had a static stability margin of
approximately 5%. As a team, we decided that this was an unacceptably low level of margin,
and so we set out to make improvements with the help of Matt Berk and Professor Kroo. As a
team, we have really come together to face the various challenges that have faced us thus far.
Ultimately, our schedule had us slated for our first iteration to be built and completed close to
st
April 21
. Unfortunately, due to major setbacks using the foam cutter, the device in which we
relied on completely for manufacturing our parts,wehaveonlyjustrecentlytestedour plane.Its
th
first takeoff was on April 25
, and because of the setbacks, we have been strained to complete
everything in time. I personally believe our setback was due to a lack of understanding of how
the foam cutter works. We have discovered that it is in no way a perfect machine, and there is
certainly a learning curve to using it. However, we will use the fact that we struggled early on
with the device to our advantage in future designs. We believe that we can now whip up a
working model in a single day from scratch, and we look forward to testing that belief in the
weeks to come. Ultimately though, if there was a lesson to be learned from this. We will
certainly take the structural design more seriously (our original intent was to let thefoamcutter
do all the work for us, but this proved futile). We plan to allow more time during the
manufacturing process for our future iterations, but now that we have made it over the learning
curve, we feel much more comfortable with our groups position. As a team, Fregata islooking
forwardtobuildingasleek,fast,andjustplaneawesomedesign.