1. MAV activities in flight dynamics and control 1 Prof A.V. Efremov, Ph. D., D. of Sc., The Head of Flight Dynamics and Control Department, Moscow Aviation Institute 97 SAE Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee Meeting Lake Tahoe, Nevada March, 2006

2. 1. Flying qualities evaluation in different piloting tasks. 2. Manual control for ESTOL. 3. Micro aerial vehicle dynamics, flight control and design. 4. Pilot behavior modeling. RESEARCHES 2005 2

3. Improvement of agreement between in-flight and ground based simulations; Development of data base on ground based evaluation of Flying Qualities for the further researches in manual control area; Development of technique for ground based simulation accompanying in-flight evaluation of Flying Qualities; Determination of the factors defined pilot rating. FLYING QUALITIES EVALUATION Goals of investigations 3

4. Landing; ESTOL; Aim-to-aim tracking; Formation flight; Refueling. INVESTIGATED PILOTING TASKS 4

5. selection of dynamic configurations; definition of task performances (desired, adequate) and additional variables (conditions for stress situations, number of attempts in each experiment, etc); generation of input signal; development of questionnaire for each piloting task; data reduction. The stages for flying qualities investigations in each piloting task 5

6. Table of all experimental researches 6 Piloting taskConfigurations Number of experiments Comment Landing 31 (including HAVE PIO, LAHOS and others) 1185 171 experiments with side stick. 3 landings in each experiment. Refueling 29 (including HAVE GAS, Neal-Smith and others) 263 3 – 11 attempts in each experiment. Aim-to-aim tracking11 (Neal-Smith)68 Formation flight3166 Aim-to-aim tracking tasks (on workstation) 42534 84 experiments with the motion cues. ESTOL591 Configurations differ by level of augmentation Total: 2060 (> 6200 runs) At least 3 runs in each experiment

7. 7 DEFINITION OF TASK PERFORMANCES Refueling percentage of successful attempt (desired, adequate) Landing (desired, adequate) Air-to-air tracking accuracy (desired, adequate)

8. 8 GENERATION OF INPUT SIGNAL Math model of drogue motion Data reduction development of spectrum and its approximation ΔХΔХ ΔZΔZ Video tape recording of the real drogue motion Refueling

9. 9 REFUELING

10. AIR-TO-AIR TRACKING 10

11. 1 QUESTIONNAIRE (pilot comment card)

12. 1212 Correlation of pilot rating PR with max PR of FQ in longitudinal ( ) and lateral ( ) channels.

13. 1313 AGREEMENT BETWEEN GROUND-BASED AND IN FLIGHT SIMULATION Landing Initial stage (2001) ΔPR flight ΔPR ground ΔPR flight = 8 ΔPR ground = 4,5 Final stage (2005) ΔPR flight = 8 ΔPR ground = 6,5

14. 1414 AGREEMENT BETWEEN GROUND-BASED AND IN FLIGHT SIMULATION IN DIFFERENT PILOTING TASKS — in flight — ground-based 6.5 8.0 9.0 5.0 5.5 Δ PR LandingRefueling Aim-to-aim tracking 2.02.0 4.04.0 6.06.0 8.08.0 10.0 0 Level of rating

15. 1515 Manual control for ESTOL

16. 1616 PROBLEMS Low velocity in manual landing High Thrust Force and angle of attack Possible loss of visual contact with ground surface Unsatisfactory lateral FQ Reversible Control in longitudinal channel Solution of problems TV camera for visual contact with ground surface + display with additional metrics and Zoom = f(L) Bank angle feedback control Velocity feedback control

17. 1717 EFFECT OF FLYING QUALITIES IMPROVEMENT : а) improvement of pilot rating : without automation PR = 8, with developed means PR = 4 – 5 б) improvement of accuracy (variance of longitudinal error) in 15 times

18. 18 MAV dynamics and design Peculiarities of MAV Low velocities, mass, inertia, wing loading. AircraftMAV mg/S, n/m 2 inertia I y, kg/m 4 200  400 ~ 2 10 4  10 5 0,5 ·10 -3 Low Reynolds numbers peculiarities in aerodynamics. unusual dynamic response: – instantaneous change of moments and quick change of forces

19. 19 First phase of investigation (april – september 2004) – Estimation of aerodynamic coefficients (C L, C D, m q, m δ … ). – Estimation of flight performances and flying qualities. – Simulation of flight. – Preliminary FCS design.

20.  M 20 Analysis of MAV flight dynamics       s1s1 s      2ss2s2 ω sp 2 ω sp ξ sp   s2s2 s z  )(s δeδe )(s Θ Phugoid modeShort-period mode ω ph ω sp s1s1 s2s2 AircraftMAV 0,1-0,010,8-1,5 1-315-20 1-210-20 0,01-0,0010,1-0,5 MAV aircraft    2ss2s2 ω ph 2 ω ph ξ ph 

21. 21 Ways for improvement of MAV flying qualities Radio canal Radio canal Operator station PrefilterM AV TV camera Use of prefilters W Ф = W Ф1 W Ф2 W Ф1 = T 1 s + 1 T 1 s T 1 = 0,5c W Ф2 = T 2 s + 1 1 T 2 = 0,2c TV-signal Control signals RECIEVER Operator station TRANSMITTER – COMPUTER – AD / DC (converter)

22. 22 1.Wind tunnel tests 2.Modification of mathematical model 3.Automation of MAV 4.MAV design Second phase of investigation (2005)

23. 23 WIND TUNNEL TESTS GOALS Influence of low Reynolds numbers, Re Influence of propeller а) Considerable increase of С L max b) Decrease of L/D ratio

24. 24 Models in the Wind tunnel

25. 25 1. Longitudinal channel Automation of MAV t, c q δ e H δ e 2. Lateral channel p δ r ψ δ r r δ a φ δ a

26. 26 FIRST FLIGHT OF DEVELOPED MAV

27. 27