Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:05:00.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Design criteria for conceptual sizing of primary flight controls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

A. J. Steer*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Sciences, Cranfield University, UK

Abstract

The European Supersonic Commercial Transport’s control surface configuration is based largely on Concorde’s and has been scaled to provide comparable un-augmented stability and manoeuvre performance. Hence, optimising the surface size could provide significant performance benefits in terms of reduced drag, noise, structural and actuator power requirements. Adequate control power will be required to meet current civil aviation regulations whose primary aim is to ensure the aircraft can be flown safely during both normal and emergency operation. Additional design criteria, combined with the optimum longitudinal control laws, are required to ensure desirable handling qualities with minimum pilot workload. Two critical low-speed flight conditions, normal and emergency, together with associated aircraft configurations for control surface sizing have been identified. The rudder must provide sufficient control power to achieve positive heading changes subsequent to a double asymmetric engine failure during normal operation. The fin should be sized to satisfy Dutch roll stability criteria with the un-augmented aircraft in its emergency configuration. The dual functionality of the elevons require that they are sized using both pitch and roll performance and handling quality criteria. The bank angle capture requirement provides the most critical elevon design case, the satisfaction of which also ensures adequate pitch control power. Validation using ‘pilot-in-the-loop’ simulation will be required whilst more explicit control surface size optimisation would require the definition of limiting airspeeds and operating conditions applicable to the European Supersonic Commercial Transport. Additional studies of control power requirements during transonic and supersonic cruise may also be required.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

Access options

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

References

1. ANON Joint Aviation Requirements JAR-25 Large Aeroplanes, May 1994.Google Scholar
2. ANON TSS Standards, Part 3 — Flying Qualities, July 1969.Google Scholar
3. ANON MIL-STD-1797A Department of Defence interface standard — flying qualities of piloted aircraft, January 1990.Google Scholar
4. Casenave, A. and Irvoas, J. Results relating to experimentation on simulator and in flight of an electrical, general application flight control system, 1977, SNI Aerospatiale, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
5. Maffre, J.C. and Negre, Y. Experimentation of a generalisable fly by wire control system on the Concorde aircraft, 1978, Von Karman Institute Lecture, controle automatique generalise, Bruxelles, 4-8 December 1978.Google Scholar
6. Steer, A.J. Flight Control for Advanced Supersonic Transport Aircraft Handling Quality Design, November 2001, PhD thesis, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
7. Nichols, K. Aerodynamic data for different fin sizes, April 1999, British Aerospace Airbus, Filton, B57F/SST/KPN/16531.Google Scholar
8. Nichols, K. Aerodynamic data for varying elevon size, February 2000, BAE Systems, Airbus, Filton, B57F/SST/KPN/17053A.Google Scholar
9. Snell, S.A., Enns, D. and Garrard, W. Non-linear inversion flight control for a supermaneuverable aircraft, AIAA-90-3406-CP, 1990.Google Scholar
10. Enns, D., Bugajski, D., Hendrick, R. and Stein, G. Dynamic inversion: an evolving methodology for flight control law design, Int J of Control, 1994, 59, (1), pp 7191.Google Scholar
11. Smith, P.R. Functional control law design using exact non-linear dynamic inversion, AIAA Paper 94-3516, August 1994.Google Scholar
12. Durham, W.C. Constrained control allocation, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, July-August 1993, 16, (4), pp 717725.Google Scholar
13. Cook, M.V. Flight Dynamics Principles, Arnold Press, 1997.Google Scholar
14. Steer, A.J. An assessment of supersonic transport aircraft flying quality requirements, CoA Report No 0003, May 2000, Cranfield University.Google Scholar
15. Chalk, C.R. Flying qualities design criteria applicable to supersonic cruise aircraft, 1979, Calspan Advanced Technology Center, NASA Conference Publication 2108 (Supersonic Cruise Research), 13-16 November, 1979.Google Scholar
16. Chalk, C.R. Calspan recommendations for supersonic cruise research (SCR) flying qualities design criteria, NASA-CR-159236, 1980.Google Scholar
17. Steer, A.J. and Cook, M.V. Control and handling qualities considerations for an advanced supersonic transport aircraft, Aeronaut J, June 1999, 103, (1024), pp 265272.Google Scholar