Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
Nomenclature
a
Cl
=
=
Cn
Cn
Cn
=
=
=
Clw
Cnv
Cna
Cnr
Cy
c
EI
GJ
Kij
L
l
Lf
lv
Li y
m
Mij
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
n
p
q
Qi
r
T
U
wx; y; t
wSC y; t
x
yw
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
y
z
i y
a
r
waero
Ly
y; t
x; y
i
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
yaw-moment
roll moment
dynamic pressure
aerodynamic matrix
yaw rate
kinetic energy
strain energy
surface displacement
shear center displacement
distance in chordwise direction
distance in span direction (RayleighRitz flutter
model)
side-force (directional stability section)
distance out-of-plane (z coordinate axis)
sideslip (yaw) angle
shape function
aileron deflection angle (rad)
rudder deflection angle (rad)
virtual work
nondimensional position in span direction
wing twist
wing sweep angle
wing mass per unit area
real part of eigenvalue
imaginary part of eigenvalue
system eigenvalues
I.
Introduction
615
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
616
Fig. 1 Conceptual sketch of proposed hypersonic vehicle with tipmounted fins with large cant angle.
not a problem with these aircraft. On the other hand, very little
archival literature on the effect of winglets on flutter exists.
Recent conceptual designs feature relatively large winglets, some
with a variable winglet cant angle with respect to the wing plane. In
2007, the U.S. Air Force announced the Future Responsive Access to
Space Technologies (FAST) program [1]. If successful, the program
will produce a subscale X-aircraft ground test and flight test. Two
FAST vehicle concepts were proposed. One of these concepts, shown
in Fig. 1, features a wing tip-mounted fin design feature to provide
directional control [2].
Winglet/tip-fin designs such as those shown in Fig. 2 are not new.
They provide some advantages over conventional centerline tail
designs, including easy access to engines and increased payload onload/off-load options [4]. Tip-mounted fins also provide directional
stability and control. However, design uncertainties, in particular the
possibility of reduced wing flutter speeds due to fin/rudder modal
coupling, raise serious questions. It is well known that winglet addition
may reduce flutter speed. A recent article in Aviation Week, discussed
the disappearance of the winglets shown on the original Boeing KC46A tanker: the winglets did not earn their way onto the airplane [5].
Winglet interest and design emerged from a desire to reduce
aircraft fuel consumption through increased aerodynamic efficiency.
However, this increased efficiency comes with a trade-off, reduced
flutter speed. Doggett and Farmer [6] studied this decrease in flutter
speed using a flat plate model with attached wing-tip fins. They used
both light (0.3% of wing weight) and heavy (1.5% of wing weight)
fins. Tests demonstrated that the light fin reduced the flutter dynamic
pressure by 3%, whereas the heavy fin reduced the flutter dynamic
pressure by 12%. These changes are due primarily to two effects:
1) changes in the aerodynamic loads and 2) changes in the mode
shapes and natural frequencies. Their experimental results correlated
well with analytical solutions obtained using a finite element solver.
Shollenberger et al. [7] reported on flight test results and low-speed
wind-tunnel flutter model tests of winglets on the DC-10 airplane.
Modal coupling between fin and higher-order wing modes
moderately reduced the flutter speed. As a result, ballast was added
to each wing tip to prevent the onset of flutter during testing.
Kehoe [8,9] discusses a series of flight tests for winglets developed
for the KC-135A tanker aircraft. The winglet cant angle and incidence angle were adjustable on the ground so that the effects of cant
angle on flutter speed could be studied.
Ruhlin et al. [10] and Bhatia et al. [11] investigated the effects of
adding a winglet on flutter speed. The study by Ruhlin et al. [10]
showed a 7% decrease in flutter speed, the majority of which was due
to the effect of added wing-tip mass. The study by Ruhlin et al. [10]
showed a flutter speed reduction up to 19%.
Several articles discuss winglet aerodynamic effects on performance
[1216]. Researchers at Bristol University optimized variable cant
angle winglets, called morphlets, to maximize a specific range [17,18].
The researchers identified three cant angles that improved efficiency
throughout the flight envelope. While the addition of morphlets adds
weight, reduced induced drag and increased range provide benefits.
Van Dam [19] showed that retrofitting an aircraft with winglets
significantly improves crosswind takeoff and landing capabilities.
617
Fig. 2
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
II.
Various vertical tail designs: single centerline-mounted, dual fuselage-mounted, and wing-tip vertical fins [3].
Model Development
(1)
Hinge stiffness
Inertia
characteristics:
Control surface size C.G. location
Control surface
Moments of
cant angle
Inertia
Rudder size
Wing/fuselage
location
Aerodynamic
Flight in 3 speed
regimes:
Subsonic
Supersonic
Hypersonic
Accurate steady
and
unsteady loads
prediction
Actuators
Power
Size:
Weight
Volume
Number
Distribution
w2 wf xf ; yf ; t wfin;SC xf f
dwwing SC L
(2)
(3)
wwing;SC
L sin
y
(4)
EI
K ij fai g Qij fai g f0g
l
(6)
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
618
Fig. 4 ASTROS finite element model showing the wing and the tip-fin
with its cant angle defined.
Fig. 5 Comparison of frequency merging, wing without tip-fin, wing
with tip-fin.
with
fai tg fai geit
(7)
(8)
where
2
ml4 2
EI
(9)
III.
Flutter Results
Fig. 6
619
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
then intersect near a point where the tip-fin length is about 45% of the
wing semi-span. This is the point where the flutter speed begins to
increase again in Fig. 6. Before this increase the flutter mode is driven
by wing bending and torsion oscillations. As the tip-fin length
increases, the wing dominated natural frequencies separate while the
tip-fin dominated in vacuo frequencies are driven closer together. As
the tip-fin becomes larger its motion begins to drive flutter, and the
flutter speed is again reduced.
The wing-bending stiffness is, in part, a function of the load factor
on the wing. A stronger structure is generally a stiffer structure.
Although both the wing-bending stiffness and the torsional stiffness
will be affected by the size of the load factor imposed on the wing, we
investigated the effects of changing only the wing bending stiffness
on flutter speed while the torsional stiffness is unchanged. Figure 8
shows plots of nondimensionalized flutter speed as a function of the
tip-fin length to wing semi-span ratio for three different bending
stiffnesses. The figure on the left is generated using the Rayleigh
Ritz model, whereas the figure on the right is generated using the
ASTROS model. In each figure, the nondimensionalization is with
respect to the wing flutter speed without a tip-fin. These flutter speeds
are different in each figure because the flutter models are different.
Both analyses show that decreased wing stiffness tends to move the
cusp associated with mode switching to the right. In addition, the
minimum flutter speed is also reduced. As before, these changes can
IV.
Fig. 8 Bending stiffness influence on flutter speed, a) RayleighRitz model and b) ASTROS model.
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
620
Fig. 9 Flutter speed vs. tip-fin cant angle for four fin lengths.
constraint. It is fair to ask then, how large the tip-fins must be for their
primary purpose of generating vehicle stability and how will static
aeroelastic effects intrude on the tip-fin design activity. No design
activity exists in a vacuum; design trade-offs appear and require
resolution. And so it is with the design of a wing with a tip-fin.
This section examines the importance of static aeroelasticity on the
effectiveness of these tip-fins when they are used to provide aircraft
directional or yaw stability. Fin size and sweep angle are the
parameters that drive the study of yaw stability.
Aircraft aerodynamic forces and moments depend on the vehicle
orientation with respect to the flight trajectory. The sideslip angle ,
the primary parameter in directional stability, describes the rotation of
the aircraft centerline with respect to the relative wind. The sideslip
angle is the directional angle of attack of the airplane. Vertical tails
and tip-mounted fins generate side-force and a yaw-moment. This
section focuses on tip-mounted fins that replace the vertical tail and
the associated directional stability derivatives; this overview does not
consider the control effects associated with a rudder.
Directional stability, also called weathercock stability, is the
tendency of an aircraft to return to its equilibrium state when
disturbed in yaw. The fuselage forward of the aircraft c.g. produces a
side-force, due to yaw, which the fuselage and vertical tail surface aft
of the c.g. must counteract. The purpose of vertical tails and tipmounted fins is to generate this restoring side-force and yawmoment, either through intentional rudder deflection or sideslip.
Sideslip angle is a yawing rotation that places the tail surface at an
angle of attack and produces a restoring moment. The size of this
yaw-moment depends on surface size, placement on the aircraft,
airspeed and altitude. Yaw-moment also depends on surface structural flexibility.
Lateral stability refers to the ability of an aircraft to return to a level
flight condition after it has been perturbed in roll. Designers build
dihedral into wings to increase lateral stability. Kermode points out
that designers cannot separate coupling effects introduced by the
vertical tail on lateral stability and directional stability [35]. Whitford
comments that designing fins only for weathercock stability would
lead to smaller vertical stabilizer sizes [36]. This section will contain
discussion and results related to the effects of aeroelasticity on several
aspects of vertical tail effectiveness.
It is standard convention to express flight vehicle aerodynamic
forces and moments in terms of nondimensional force and moment
coefficients. These force and moment coefficients have the generally
accepted nomenclature indicated in Fig. 10 ([37]). This figure shows
an aircraft with a positive sideslip or yaw angle, denoted as ,
measured positive counter-clockwise. If the aircraft is stable, sideslip
will produce a restoring moment clockwise about a vertical axis.
For flight mechanics computations, the positive direction of the
vertical z-axis is directed downward so that this is a positive moment;
the yawing moment and the yawing moment coefficient for a stable
aircraft are positive.
Standard convention defines stability and control derivatives with
respect to reference wing areas and characteristic lengths, usually a
wing span or chord length. The derivative magnitude is a linear
superposition of the contributions from vehicle components such as
the wing and tail and due to the deployment of elements such as a
rudder.
For example, the yawing moment derivative Cn measures the
ability of the configuration to remain in a stable static and dynamic
state and to provide yaw stability. This derivative is defined as
N qSbCn
(10)
(11)
(12)
The first term in Eq. (12) is the contribution from the wing, usually
negligible except at large angles of attack. The second term is due to
the fuselage and, for most aircraft, this contribution is negative [38]
and diminishes stability. The third term, contribution from the
vertical tail, determines yaw stability.
ASTROS provides the ability to calculate lateral and directional
stability derivatives: the yaw rate derivatives: Cyr , Clr , Cnr ; the angle
of sideslip derivatives: Cy , Cl , Cn ; the roll rate derivatives: Cyp ,
Clp , Cnp . The subscripts refer to: y side force, l roll moment,
n yaw rate, r yaw rate, sideslip angle, and p
roll moment.
However, of these nine derivatives, a conventional vertical tail
provides major contributions only to Cn , Cy , Cnr , Cyr [39]. The roll
derivatives, Cnr , Cyr , calculated with respect to the roll axis, describe
the effect of the tip-fin on the yaw-moment and side-force resulting
from roll, respectively. Cnr must be negative to provide stability; the
typical range of values for this derivative is between 0.1 and 0.4
[5]. Whether the vertical tail is on the fuselage or is moved to the wing
tip, these derivatives will not change because the tip-fin moments do
not change with respect to the roll axis. As a result, this overview does
not include a discussion of these derivatives.
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
621
by the moment arm length for each component that contributes to the
yaw-moment. Here, the moment arm for the vertical tail is shown
because this study will address the stability provided by the tail. One
way to increase this moment arm is to sweep the wing. When the
vertical stabilizer is moved from the centerline, lateral and directional
stability is maintained by adjusting fin parameters such as the area of
the fin surface, fin sweep angle and fin cant angle.
With the coordinate system shown in Fig. 10 the restoring yawmoment and associated directional stability derivative are positive
because the z-axis is directed downward. However, ASTROS uses a
different coordinate system in which the z-axis is directed upward
and the x-axis is positive aft so that the sign of the restoring moment is
negative. Figure 12 shows these differences.
If ASTROS calculations give negative Cn the air vehicle has
positive yaw stability. The side-force derivative is not affected by this
coordinate system change.
Aeroelastic deformation has an effect on stability derivatives. Lift
effectiveness is defined as the lift produced by a flexible wing, at a
fixed angle of attack, divided by the lift produced by an identical, but
rigid, wing at the same angle of attack. For this model, wing twisting
increases lift, but wing bending, when combined with wing
sweepback, decreases lift, leading to differences between rigid and
flexible wings.
A swept wing with twist and bending deformation has its local
angle of attack changed by an amount equal to cos dw
dy sin .
Here, is the twist angle, w is the upward deflection, y is the spanwise
coordinate, and is the wing sweep angle (see Fig. 3). If the wing is
unswept, bending deformation has no effect on the lift distribution;
for sweptback wings the angle of attack is reduced.
To illustrate this aeroelastic effect, consider the wing-lift
distribution shown in Fig. 13. This 35 deg sweptback wing-lift distribution is shown for both a rigid and a flexible wing. Both wings are
trimmed to the same total lift, such that the areas under the curves are
identical, although the trim angle of attack differs. The effect of
flexibility is to move the spanwise center of pressure inboard, nearer
the wing root. While this is a desirable effect for a wing (the bending
622
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
Fig. 15 compares the rigid and flexible derivatives only for the first
case. This plot shows results for two fin lengths, a small, short fin, 0.4
times the wing length, and a longer fin, 0.7 times the wing length.
Figure 15 shows plots of the side-force and yaw-moment coefficients against fin sweep angle for two fin lengths. Note that
Figs. 15a, 15c, and 15d have the same y-axis scales. The top portion
of Fig. 15 shows the rigid and flexible (15,000 ft) yaw stability
derivatives for the short fin with its length equal to 0.4 times the
Goland wing length. The rigid side-force derivative (Fig. 15a)
decreases with increasing fin sweep because fin sweep reduces the
lift-curve slope. [The value of the lift-curve slope of a rigid swept
surface decreases approximately in proportion to cos().] This
accounts for this decrease in side-force created by sideslip. The
flexible fin side-force stability derivative decreases as well, but the
plot also shows that at small sweep angles the flexible fin is more
effective, but when the fin is swept the flexible surface is less
effective. At larger sweep angles, fin bending coupling with fin sweep
decreases the effectiveness of the fin.
The yaw-moment flexible derivative shows similar behavior to the
flexible side-force derivative. However, note that the rigid stability
derivative initially decreases (more stability) but the curve contains a
local minimum at approximately 20 deg. As the fin is swept, the fin
lift-curve slope decreases while the moment arm between the fin
aerodynamic center and the fuselage center of gravity increases.
Initially, the moment arm increase is greater than the lift-curve slope
decrease, and so the fin provides more yaw stability. However,
for larger fin sweep angles, as sweep angle increases, fin bending
coupling with fin sweep decreases the effectiveness of the fin.
The rigid surface yaw derivatives for the larger, longer fin change
in a similar fashion to the shorter fin rigid yaw derivatives. However,
the crossing (the point where the flexible surface becoming less
effective than the rigid surface) occurs at a lower sweep angle. Also,
at large sweep angles, 35 to 45 deg, the smaller fins flexible sideforce derivative magnitude is greater (more negative) than the larger
fins. Depending on the sweep angle of the fin, this may become a
problem for vehicles relying on tip-fins for directional stability.
Figure 16 plots the two rigid yaw derivatives against both fin sweep
angle and fin size showing the effects of fin sweep angle on the
derivative values and illustrating the trade-off between moment arm
length and lift-curve slope decrease. This figure indicates that for
increased side-force the sweep angle of the fin should be minimized,
while for increased yaw-moment stability the fin should be swept
back slightly to increase the moment arm of the restoring moment
provided by the vertical stabilizer.
Figure 17 shows the rigid stability derivatives when both the wing
and the tip-fin are swept together, the sweep angle of each surface is
the same in every case.
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
623
Fig. 15 Yaw stability derivatives, two fin lengths, a), c) side-force derivative, b), d) yaw-moment derivative.
Fig. 16 Surface plots rigid yaw stability derivatives, increasing fin length and sweep angle.
624
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
curve, depending on the flight altitude. For the same range of tip-fin
lengths, the flutter speed initially decreases, encounters a flutter mode
switch that increases the flutter speed, and then finally declines again.
These competing and conflicting interests need to be reconciled if a
vehicle with tip-fins is developed.
V.
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge P. C. Chen and the ZONA
Corporation for the use of the ASTROS code. In addition, Ned
Lindsley and Ed Pendleton of AFRL, Air Vehicles Directorate
graciously supplied helpful comments and guidance throughout this
research.
References
[1] Raymer, D. P., Doupe, C. C., Fry, T. J., Munro, B., Davis, R. R., Mallick,
K., and Weatherly, H., An Affordable Flight Demonstrator for FullyReusable Access to Space Technologies, Univ. Dayton Research Inst.,
Dayton, OH, 2007.
[2] Doupe, L. C., Sponable, J., Zweber, J., and Cohn, R., Fully Reuseable
Access to Space Technology (FAST), AFRL-PR-ED-TP-2007-108,
16 March 2007.
[3] Sadraey, M., Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, John
Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2012, pp. 265340.
[4] Vorhees, S., Zink, P. S., Hansen, P., Skillen, M. D., Watson, T., De La
Garza, A., Penning, K. B., and Brunson, T. D., Future Responsive
Access to Space Technologies (FAST) Technology Assessment
Research (TAR) Aeroelastic Assessment of Flight Experiment
Concepts, AFRL-RB-WP-TR-2009-3064, Feb. 2009.
[5] Butler, A., KC-46A Lacks Winglets Shown in Competition, Aviation
Week and Space Technology, 7 April 2011.
[6] Dogget, R. V. Jr., and Farmer, M. G., Preliminary Study of Effects of
Winglets on Wing Flutter. NASA TM X-3433, Dec. 1979.
[7] Shollenberger, C. A., Humphreys, J. W., Heiberger, F. S., and Pearson,
R. M., Results of Winglet Development Studies for DC-10
Derivatives, NASA CR-3677, 1983.
[8] Kehoe, M. W., Winlet Flight Flutter Program. KC-135 Winglet
Program Review. NASA CP-2211, Sept. 1982, pp. 171188.
[9] Kehoe, M. W., Winlget Flight Flutter Test Program, AFFTC TR-81-4,
Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, Edwards, CA, June 1981.
[10] Ruhlin, C. L., Rauch, F. J., and Waters, C., Transonic Flutter Model
Study of a Supercritical Wing and Winglet, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20,
No. 8, 1983, pp. 711716.
[11] Bhatia, K. G., Nagaraja, K. S., and Ruhlin, C. L., Winglet Effects on the
Flutter of a Twin-Engine Transport-Type Wing, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 22, No. 7, 1985, pp. 587594.
doi:10.2514/3.45170
[12] Takenaka, K., Hatanaka, K., and Yamazaki, W., Multidisciplinary
Design Exploration for a Winglet, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 5,
2008, pp. 16011611.
doi:10.2514/1.33031
[13] Coiro, D. P., Nicolosi, F., and Scherillo, F., Improving Hang-Glider
Maneuverability Using Multiple Winglets: A Numerical and
Experimental Investigation, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2008,
pp. 981989.
doi:10.2514/1.33265
[14] Herrmann, U., Critical Flow Phenomena on the Winglet of Winged
Reentry Vehicles, Zeitschrift Fur Flugwissenschaften Und Weltraumforschung, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1995, pp. 309319.
[15] Pfeiffer, N. J., Numerical winglet optimization, 42nd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2004, pp. 1960
1963.
[16] Thouault, N., Experimental Investigation of Bistable Winglets to
Enhance Wing Lift Takeoff Capability, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46,
No. 2, 2009, pp. 647655.
doi:10.2514/1.39750
[17] Ursache, N. M., Morphing Winglets for Aircraft Multi-Phase
Improvement, Collection of Technical Papers7th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Vol. 2, AIAA,
Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2007, pp. 12161227.
[18] Ursache, N. M., Melin, T., Isikveren, A. T., and Friswell, M. I.,
Technology Integration for Active Poly-Morphing Winglets Development, ASME Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and
Intelligent Systems, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), New York, Oct. 2008.
[19] van Dam, C. P. Effect of Winglets on Performance and Handling
Qualities of General Aviation Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 18,
No. 7, 1981, pp. 587591.
doi:10.2514/3.57531
[20] Roskam, J., Part VI: Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust
and Power Characteristics, DARcorp., Lawrence, KS, 2008.
[21] Rahman, N. U., and Whidborne, J. F., A Lateral Directional Flight
Control System for the MOB Blended Wing Body Planform,
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
[26]
[27]
[28]
625
[29] Costa, A. P., Moniz, P. A., and Suleman, A., Experimental aeroelastic
control using adaptive wing model concepts, Vol. 4332, International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2001, pp. 3747.
[30] Matsuzaki, Y., and Torii, H. Flutter boundary prediction of an adaptive
smart wing during process of adaptation. Vol. 5764, International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2005, pp. 203213.
[31] Webb, M. B., and Subbarao, K., On the Dynamic Aeroelastic Stability
of Morphable Wing Structures, 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA,
Newport, RI, 14 May 2006.
[32] Goland, M., Flutter of uniform cantilever wing, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Transactions Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1945, pp. A197A208.
[33] Goland, M., and Luke, Y. L., Flutter of Uniform Wing with Tip Weights,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1947, pp. A13A20.
[34] ASTROS Theoretical Manual: ZONA Technology, April 2006.
[35] Kermode, A. C., Mechanics of Flight, 10th ed., Pearson Education
Unlimited, 1996, pp. 190195.
[36] Whitford, R., Design for Air Combat, Janes Publishing Inc., New York,
1987.
[37] Talay, T. A., Introduction to the Aerodynamics of Flight, Scientific and
Technical Information Office, NASA, Washington, DC, 1975.
[38] Roskam, J., Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls,
DARcorp., Lawrence, KS, 2007.
[39] Etkin, B., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1982.
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
1. Matthew P. Snyder, Terrence A. Weisshaar. 2014. Simultaneous Configuration Optimization of Multistate Reconfigurable
Aerostructures. Journal of Aircraft 51:3, 727-739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]