CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Stability and control are fundamental properties of an aircraft’s dynamic

characteristics, influencing flying qualities and hence pilot workload and safety. Similarly,
dynamic stability of an aircraft refers to how the aircraft behaves after it has been disturbed
following steady non-oscillating flight.

The stability about the airplane’s longitudinal axis, which extends from nose to tail, is
called lateral stability. This involves rolling motions and yawing motions which helps to
stabilize the lateral or rolling effect when one wing gets lower than the wing on the opposite
side of the airplane. Basically, there are three types of possible lateral-directional dynamic
motions involves stabilizing the aircraft which are roll subsidence mode, spiral mode as well
as Dutch roll mode. Roll subsidence mode is simply the damping of rolling motion which
does not have direct aerodynamic moment created tending to directly restore wings-level.
Dutch roll mode is an oscillatory combined roll and yaw motion, followed by a recovery
towards the equilibrium condition, then an overshooting of this condition and a yaw and roll
to the left, then back past to the equilibrium altitude. On the other hand, spiral divergence
mode exists when the static directional stability of the airplane is very strong as compared to
the effect of its dihedral in maintaining lateral equilibrium.

To rectify and stabilize such types of motions during the flight, flight control system
has been played an important role that consistently working to rectify and improve the flying
qualities. To do so, stability augmentation system has been designed which includes a simple
feedback system that rectifies the system.

To mathematically visualize the lateral motions, a task has been assigned to design a
stability augmentation system which includes the simple feedback system and to design the
flight control system for lateral motion. A few analyses have been approached in order to
meet the minimum system requirements.

1
 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

To accomplish the project based on the decided objectives, an analytical method is

approached. This includes determining the basic parameters based on the given Mac and
altitude value which determines the state-space matrix for a rudder input for lateral motion.
Based on the project, I have been assigned flight case 32 and this is a lateral motion for A4D
SKYHAWK Fighter aircraft that flies at 35000 from the sea level with Mac number 0.9.

A state-space matrix is calculated based on the given parameters for the aircraft and
transfer function is obtained which determines the stability of the aircraft. Besides that, roots
are determined in order to analyse flying qualities of the aircraft. To aid the matrix
calculation, MATLAB software has been used widely for most of the calculations involved
where manual calculation could not be performed. The state-space equation (lateral motion)
is given as follows:

ẋ= Ax+ Bu

Yβ Yβ Y g cos θ 0 Yδ

[ ][ ][ ] [ ]
∆ β̇ −1(1− r ) ∆β
r

u u0 u0 u0 u0
∆ ṗ = 0 ∆p +
Lβ Lp Lr 0 Lδ [ δ r ]
∆ ṙ ∆r r

∆ ∅˙ Nβ Np Nr 0 ∆ ∅ Nδ r

0 1 0 0 0

To control the aircraft performance, an augmentation system is designed which

includes simple feedback system. The designed concept of the flight control has to be tested
whether it meet the required performance specifications. However not all design can meet the
objective using a single gain. Hence, to improve the design, the system is incorporated with
additional components such as actuators that facilitate the system which known as
compensator. This is achieved by using PID Controller where root locus is plotted using

2
MATLAB to obtain the gain for every controller in order to give stability to the aircraft at
flying condition required.

CHAPTER 3

OUTCOME AND RESULTS

T
3.1 Write the state-space matrix for state vector [ β p r ϕ ] to rudder input δ r for lateral
motion.
To obtain state-space matrix for state vector[ β p r ϕ ] T to rudder input δ r for lateral
motion, the basic parameters are obtained from graphs (Table 3.1 shown in Appendix) for
A4D SKYHAWK based on M=0.9 and Altitude =35K and these parameters are
substituted in lateral directional derivatives (Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 shown in Appendix).
The obtained values are then substituted into lateral space-state of equation as follows:
ẋ= Ax+ Bu

−0.1600 0 −1.0000 0.0367

[
A= −43.7900 −1.1550 −1.0214
19.4116
0
0.0414 −0.4354
1.0000 0
0
0
0
]
0 0.0257

[
B= 17.5160 8.9081
0.4853 −7.2100
0 0
]
Since we are considering for rudder inputs only, the state-space matrix is as follows:

3
 ∆ β̇ −0.1600 0 −1.0000 0.0367 ∆ β 0 0.0257

[ ][
∆ ṗ = −43.7900 −1.1550 −1.0214
∆ ṙ
∆ ∅˙
19.4116
0
0.0414 −0.4354
1.0000 0
0
0
0
∆r
∆∅
][ ] [
∆ p + 17.5160 8.9081 δ a
0.4853 −7.2100 δ r
0 0
][ ]
T
3.2 Obtain the transfer function between [ β p r ϕ ] toδ r for lateral motion. Evaluate the
flying qualities and describe all the stability modes.

3.2.1 Transfer Function for Lateral Motion based on Rudder Input

By using the Matlab the above equation can be solved forδ r , and it yields:

β 0.0257 s 3+ 7.2509 s2 +8.2997 s+0.4126

= 4
δ r s +1.7504 s 3 +20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274
p 8.9081 s 3+11.5428 s 2−142.0061 s
= 4
δ r s +1.7504 s 3 +20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274
r −7.2100 s3−8.6135 s2 −0.7438 s−5.2410
= 4
δ r s +1.7504 s 3 +20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274
∅ 8.9081 s2 +11.5428 s−142.0061
= 4
δ r s +1.7504 s 3 +20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274

3.2.2 Transfer Function for Lateral Motion based on Aileron Input

By using the Matlab the above equation can be solved forδ a , and it yields:

β −0.4853 s 2−0.6428 s +0.2617

= 4
δ a s + 1.7504 s 3+ 20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274
p 17.1560 s 3 +9.9333 s 2 +362.4058 s
= 4
δ a s + 1.7504 s 3+ 20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274
r 0.4853 s3 +1.3633 s 2 +0.2057 s +13.2584
= 4
δ a s + 1.7504 s 3+ 20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274
∅ 17.1560 s 2+ 9.9333 s+ 362.4058
= 4
δ a s + 1.7504 s 3+ 20.2112 s 2+ 22.3018 s+1.4274

4
 3.2.3 Flying Qualities and Stability Analysis

Before analysing the flying qualities of the A4D Skyhawk. The

following information are determined for further analysis. There are as
follows:

 Class of aircraft: ΙV (High-manoeuvrability airplanes(fighter)

 Flight Phase: Non-Terminal Flight
 Category of Flight Phase: A- Non-terminal rapid manoeuvring, precise
tracking

Table 3.1 Table of information of A4D SKYHAWK

This information’s are needed to determine the flying qualities for lateral motion as it
is compared with the scale developed by Cooper-Harper that describe the relationship
between the flying qualities. The scale is shown in Table 3.4, Table3.5 and Table 3.6 in
Appendix. For lateral motion, the roots are as follows:

λ 1,2(Dutch Roll )=−0.3028 ± 4.3992 i λ 1,2 (Spiral) =−0.0682

λ 1,2(Roll)=−1.0765

Figure 3.1 Graph of S-plane GRAPH OF S-PLANE

10

8 Based
on the 6
Figure
4
3.1, the S-plane
2
graph
IMAGE

-2 shows
the -4 location
-6
of the roots of
-8
the
-10
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
REAL

characteristics equation in which it determines the stability of the roots. For lateral mode,

5
usually the characteristic equation factorizes into one complex pair of roots and two real
roots. The complex pair of roots describes the dutch roll oscillation, the real root describes
the roll subsidence mode and the small real root describe the spiral mode. From the graph, we
can observe that all the roots are located within the negative region of the graph. This shows
that all the roots are stable and the flying qualities based on the roots are evaluated as
follows:

Modes Damping Ratio ( Natural Frequency ( Time Flying Qualities

ξ¿ ωn ¿ constant

Dutch Roll 0.0687 4.4 - Level 2

Spiral - 0.0682 14.7 Level 1
Roll - 1.0765 0.929 Level 1
Table 3.2 Table of Modes against Flying Qualities

Based on Table 3.2, the flying qualities for spiral and roll are the same which is Level
1. This indicates that the flying qualities clearly adequate for the mission flight phase.
However, for dutch roll the flying qualities is Level 2 in which it is adequate to accomplish
the mission flight but with some increase in pilot workload and /or degradation in mission
effectiveness or both. This can be improved to Level 1 flying qualities via using control and
stability augmentation system without changing the aircraft configuration.

3.3 Develop the state-space equation for lateral dutch roll motion.

The following state-space matrix is used to determine the state-space equation for lateral
dutch roll motion which as follows:

Yβ Y Y δr
β̇ =
[]
ṙ
u0
Nβ[−(1− r ) Δ β

Nr
u0
Δr
+
][ ] [ ][
0
u0
N δa N δr
Δ δa
Δδ r ]
β̇ −0.1600 −1.0000 Δ β 0 0.0257 Δ δ a
[][
ṙ
= + ][ ] [
19.4116 −0.4354 Δ r 0.4853 −7.2100 Δ δ r ][ ]
By transforming the matrices into and deferential equations, it yields:

˙
β̇=−0.1600 β−r+ 0.0257 δ r

6
 ṙ =19.4116 β−0.4354 r + 0.4853 δ a−7.2100 δr

By rearranging the terms accordingly, it forms two equations as follows:

˙ 0.0257 δ ¿………………..(1)
β̇ +0.1600 β+ r=¿ r

ṙ −19.4116 β+ 0.4354 r=0.4853 δ a−7.2100 δr ………...(2)

Assuming δ a=0 and β̇=s β ,ṙ =sr ;

Substitute δ a=¿ 0 into equation (1) and (2) and Divide δ r;

r β
+ ( s+0.1600 ) =0.0257
δr δr

r β
( s+0.4354 ) −19.4116 =−7.2100
δr δr

Transforming the equations into matrices yields:

[ (s+0.1600) 1 δr
−19.4116 ( s+0.4354) r
δr
[]
] [
=
0.0257
−7.2100 ]
β

[ ][δr
r
δr
=
(s+ 0.1600) 1
−1
0.0257
][
−19.4116 (s+0.4354) −7.2100 ]

A−1=
adj| A|
=
[ (s +0.4354)
19.4116 (s
−1
]
+0.1600)
det | A| ( s+ 0.1600 )( s+0.4354 )−(−1)(19.4116)

( s+0.4354)
β
[ −1
]
[ ] 0 1 r
[]
1 0 δr =

δr
19.4116
2
(s+ 0.1600)
s + 0.5954 s +19.4786
0.0257
[
−7.2100 ]
β 0.0257 s+7.2212
= 2
δ r s +0.5954 s+19.4786

r −7.2100 s−0.6547
= 2
δ r s +0.5954 s+19.4786

7
 Thus, for rudder input, the transfer function is as follows:

r −7.2100 s−0.6547
= 2
δ r s +0.5954 s+19.4786

3.4 Design the stability augmentation system using a simple feedback gain of r for
lateral motion to give the close loop stability of ξ >0.7 .

By considering the transfer function above, the feedback gain r can be obtained as
follows:

 The closed loop stability characteristic equation is as follows:

1+ K .G ( s )=0

r
1+ K ( )
δr
=0

s−0.6547
1+ K
( s−7.2100
2
+0.5954 s+19.4786 )
=0

s2 +0.5954 s+19.4786+ K (−7.2100 s−0.6547 )=0

s2 +0.5954 s+19.4786−7.2100 Ks−0.6547 K =0

s2 + ( 0.5954−7.2100 K ) s+19.4786−0.6547 K =0 … … ..(3)

2 ξ ω n=0.5954−7.2100 K

 When ξ >0.7
From equation 3, the coefficient of s represents,

2 ξ ω n=0.5954−7.2100 K

2 ( 0.7 ) ωn =0.5954−7.2100 K

ω n=0.4253−5.1500 K …..Eq.(4)

From equation 3, the coefficient of constant represents,

ω n2=19.4786−0.6547 K …..Eq(5)
Squaring Eq.4 and Equating Eq.4 and Eq5, yields:

( 0.4253−5.1500 K )2 =19.4786−0.6547 K

8
 0.1809−4.3806 K +26.5225 K 2=19.4786−0.6547 K

26.5225 K 2−3.7259 K−19.2977=0

K=0.9261 K =−0.7856

Based on Eq.3, the values of K are substituted:

K=-0.7856;

s2 + ( 0.5954−7.2100 K ) s+19.4786−0.6547 K =0

s2 + ( 0.5954−7.2100(−0.7856) ) s+19.4786−0.6547(−0.7856)=0

s2 + ( 6.2596 ) s +19.9929=0

δ dr r(s)
−7.2100 s−0.6547
s 2+ 0.5954 s +19.4786

Figure 3.2 Block diagram for open loop transfer function

δr δe (S)
d (s )
−7.2100 s−0.6547 r(s)
s 2+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929

K=-0.7856

Figure 3.3 Block diagram for closed loop transfer function

Figure 3.4 Step Response open and Step Response closed loop feedback system
1.5

Based open loop system

closed loop feedback system
on the
1
Figure 3.4, during
0.5
the open
Yaw Rate,Rad/s

loop 0

-0.5

-1

-1.5
system, the
maximum -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)
amplitude that

9
the system can reach is about -0.73. However, as the system is improved with closed loop
control system in which the K= -0.7853 with damping ratio of 0.7, the maximum amplitude
that the system can reach is about -1.5. On the other hand, in terms of steady state response of
both the system, open loop system reaches from transient response to steady state at 1.78s
whereas for closed loop control system is 21.9s (diagram is zoomed in MATLAB). From
both the statements, we can conclude that closed loop control system will achieve higher
amplitude at a shorter interval compared to open loop system which took longer time to reach
steady state at shorter maximum amplitude.

δr 10
3.5 Introduce the rudder actuator with transfer function of =
δ s+10
Ψc eΨ δr r (s)
10 −7.2100 s−0.6547
-
s +10 s 2+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929

K=-0.7856

Figure 3.5 Block diagram for rudder actuator system

The new transfer function will be as follows:

r −7.2100 s−0.6547 −10

= 2 ×
δ r s +6.2596 s+19.9929 s+10

r 72.1 s +6.547
= 3
δ r s +16.2596 s2 +82.5889 s +199.929

Figure 3.6 Step Response for closed loop feedback system and closed loop control
system with actuators.
Step Response
2
closed loop feedback system
closed loop feedback system with actuator
1.5
Based on
the Figure 1 3.6, in
closed
Yaw Rate,Rad/s

0.5
control
0 system,
the maximum
-0.5
amplitude
that the -1 system

-1.5 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)
can reach is about 1.5 at damping ratio of 0.7. As the actuator transfer function is introduced
to the closed loop control system, the maximum amplitude has reduced to 1.1. While
comparing the steady state response, for closed loop control system, it took about 22s to
reach from transient response to steady state whereas with actuator the time taken for the
system to reach from transient response to steady state is 14.5s. This shows that introducing
compensators(actuator) into the system will reduce the maximum amplitude and time taken to
reach steady state response.

3.6 Design a flight control system for lateral yaw attitude Ψ to give the close loop

rad
stability of ω n> 1.12 , damping ratio ofξ >0.7 and zero steady state error.
s
Compare your controller performance with PID controller. From Bode plot
determine gain and phase margin of your final design.

3.6.1. Using Control and Stability Augmentation System (CSAS)

r(s)
Ψ ref er δr
−7.2100 s−0.6547 1 Ψ
s 2+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929 s

e rg
K=-0.7856

Figure 3.7 Block diagram for compensator system

`

er r(s)
−7.2100 s−0.6547
s 2+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929

K=-0.7856

Figure 3.8 Block diagram of open loop transfer system

11
 Figure 3.9 Step Response of open loop transfer function
Step Response
1.5

Based
1
on the Figure
0.5
3.9, the step
Yaw Rate,Rad/s

-0.5

-1

-1.5

response -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 is
20
Time (seconds)
obtained from
the open loop transfer function which has represented in the block diagram in Figure 3.9. The

r −7.2100 s−0.6547
new transfer function obtained from the block diagram above is = 2 .
δ r s +6.2596 s+19.9929

Ψ ref Ψ̇
−7.2100 s−0.6547 1 Ψ
s 2+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929 s

Figure 3.10 Block Diagram of close loop transfer

function

Based on the Figure 3.9, the step response is obtained from the open loop transfer
function which has represented in the block diagram in Figure 3.9. The new transfer function

δΨ −7.2100 s−0.6547
obtained from the block diagram above is = 3 . The transfer
δ r s +6.2596 s 2+ 19.9929 s

1
function of introduced to transform yaw rate to yaw angle.
s

12
 Figure 3.11 Step Response of close loop transfer function
Step Response
4.5
Based on the
4
Figure 3.11, the step
3.5
response is obtained
3
Yaw Angle,Theta

from the 2.5

close loop
transfer 2
function
which 1.5 has
1 represented
in the 0.5 block
diagram in 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure
Time (seconds)
3.10. The step
response represents the yaw angle reaches infinity as the time rises.

3.6.2. Introducing PID Controller

Ψ ref
−7.2100 s−0.6547
PID
10 s 2+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929
s +10

Figure 3.11 Block diagram PID control system

Open loop transfer function given as:

(−72.1 s−6.547)K pu
G ( s ) . H ( s )=
s + 16.2596 s 2+ 82.5889 s+199.929
3

Using the close-loop denominator to find the critical value of proportional gain, K pu,

G ( s ) . H ( s )=s3 +16.2596 s 2 +(82.5889−72.1 K pu)s+ ( 199.929−6.547 K pu )= 0

 Obtaining K pu

13
 Substituting s= jω ;

( jω)3 +16.2596( jω)2 +( 82.5889−72.1 K pu )( jω)+ ( 199.929−6.547 K pu) = 0

Equating the coefficients of jω on both the equations:

−ω ( ω2 + ( 82.5889−72.1 K pu) )=0

ω 2=−82.5889+72.1 K pu

Equating the coefficients of without j on both the equations:

−16.2596 ω 2+ ( 199.929−6.547 K pu )=0

−16.2596(−82.5889+ 72.1 K pu )+ ( 199.929−6.547 K pu ) =0

K pu =¿ 0.9804;

Substituting K pu into ω=√ 82.5889−72.1(0.9804)=3.4499 rad /s

 Finding T u
2π 2π
T u= = =1.8213
ω 3.4499
 Therefore;
k p=¿0.6 K pu=0.6 ( 0.9804 )=0.5882

0.6 K pu 0.6(0.9804)
k i= = =0.6460
0.5T u 0.5 (1.8213)

k d=0.6 K pu ( 0.125 T u )=¿0.6(0.9804) [0.125(1.8213)] =0.1339

A PID controller will have the arrangement as below:

Ki 0.6460
K p+ + K d s=0.5882+ + 0.1339 s
s s

Ψ ref
−7.2100 s−0.6547
0.6460
0.5882+ + 0.1339s 2s+ 6.2596 s+ 19.9929
10s
s +10

14
 Figure 3.12 Complete block diagram of PID Control System

Step Response
1.2

0.8
Yaw Altitude

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (seconds)

Figure 3.13 Graph of yaw altitude against time for CSAS and PID

Figure 3.14 Bode plot of the CSAS system

Bode Diagram
Gm = -1.16 dB (at 0 rad/s) , Pm = -22.2 deg (at 0.0126 rad/s)
20
Figure Bode Diagram
3.15
0
(dB) (dB)

Gm = Inf dB (at Inf rad/s) , Pm = 138 deg (at 0.186 rad/s)

50
Bode -20 plot of
Magnitude

-400
PID control
Magnitude

-60
-50
-80
system
180
-100
1350
(deg)(deg)

Based
on -45
90 Figure
Phase

3.13, -90 graph is

Phase

45
plotted -135 yaw
0
altitude
10 -3
-180 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10
against Frequency (rad/s) time
Frequency (rad/s)

15
for CSAS and PID control systems. To compare the system, the parameters are tabulated as
follows:

Parameters CSAS PID Controller

Rise Time 92.5738s 5.9832s
Settling Time 166.3156s 36.0702s
Maximum Overshoot (%) 0 16.2562
Peak 1.1428s 1.1626s
Peak Time 446.4836s 15.6343s
Gain Margin -1.16dB (at 0rad/s) Inf dB (at Inf rad/s)
Phase Margin −22.2 dB( at 0.0126 rad /s ) 138°(at 0.186 rad/s)
Table 3.3 Table of comparisons between CSAS and PID Controller

Basically, to determine the performance of the system, it can determine through

analysing and interpreting the rise time, settling time and maximum overshoot (%). From the
Table 3.3, it shows that PID has less rise time, settling time compare to CSAS system. Since,
for a stability performance of the aircraft, it is required that the time to response should less
so that any rectification of the fault can be corrected as fast as possible. Besides that, less
maximum overshoot will reduce the amount of steady state error. From PID controller has
maximum overshoot of 16.2562% compare with CSAS which has no overshoot. In overall,
we could conclude that PID controller gives a better performance for stability control
compared to CSAS system.

16
 CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In overall, the lateral dynamics of A4D SKYHAWK aircraft which flies at an altitude
of 35000 feet with Mac number of 0.7 is analysed by applying the combination of classical
and modern control system. The performance of each system is being compared to determine
the stability of the aircraft. To do so, a set of first order differential equations which obtained
from linearization of lateral equations with constant coefficients are transformed into state of
space matric. In fact, these differential equations are derived from the aerodynamic stability
derivatives, mass and inertia characteristics of the airplane. From the obtained state of space

17
matrix, the flying qualities of the airplane associated to the stability and the control
characteristics can be determined in which this can be observed from the roots obtained from
the denominator of the function which implies as characteristic equation. The flying qualities
are essential to express the impressions of the pilot during controlling and manoeuvring the
aircraft without stressing the aircraft too much. The pilot forms a subjective opinion about the
ease or difficulty of controlling the airplane in steady and manoeuvring flight.

Basically, in designing an airplane with good quality with high performance, the
flying quality should always maintain at highest level which maximises the efficiency of the
performances of the aircraft during flying. In order to do such, altering and improving the
performance and stability of the aircraft using control system are essential in which a few
types of methods, namely SAS, CSAS and PID controller are applicable to produce the
expected performance and stability of the aircraft when the aircraft encounters any worst
situation. To introduce such control system, software such as MATLAB are needed to
visualize the real system configuration and operation on different situation.

CHAPTER 5

REFERENCES

 BOOKS
 Nelson, R. C. (1998). Flight stability and automatic control. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
 Butterworth-Heinemann. (2007). Flight dynamic principles a linear systems
approach to aircraft stability and control. S.l.

18
 INTERNET
 Introduction to Aircraft Stability and Control Course Notes for M&AE .
Retrieved December 15, 2019, from
https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/mae5070/Caughey_2011_04.pdf
 Brott, H. (1998). A Study of aircraft lateral dynamics & ground stability.

19
 APPENDIX

M =¿ 0.9 ALT=35K W= 17578Ib I x =8090 slug . ft 2

I y =25900 slug . ft 2 I xz =1300 slug . ft 2 I xz =I yz =0 slug . ft 2

g=32.17095 ft/ s2 ρ=7.3820× 10−4 slug/ ft 3 S=260 ft 2 c=10.8 ft

b=27.5 ft u0 =875.8260 ft/s AR=2.9087 C L =¿0.2388

C D =0.0128 Q=283.1260 Ib/ ft 2 s m=546.3936Ib

K=0.1125 e=0.9723

Table 3.1 Basic parameters of A4D SKYHAWK M=0.9 at 35K

Table 3.2 Formulae of lateral directional derivatives

I
 Lateral Directional Derivatives

Directional Derivatives Values (rad/s)

Yβ -140.1138

Y δR 22.4990

Lβ -43.7900

Lp -1.1550

Lr -1.0214

Nβ 19.4116

Np 0.0414

Nr -0.4354

Lδa 17.5160

Lδr 8.9081
N δa 0.4853

N δr -7.2100

Table 3.3 Table of Lateral Directional Derivatives values for M=0.9 at 35K

II
Table 3.4 Spiral mode flying qualities (minimum time to double amplitude)

Table 3.5 Roll m ode flying qualities (maximum roll time constant)

Table 3.6 Dutch roll flying qualities

III
MATLAB script
%Q1
clc;
clear all;
%A-4D at M = 0.9, 35K
rho = 7.3820e-4; %slug/ft^3
M = 0.9;
a = 973.14; %ft/s
Vo = M*a; %ft/s
uo = Vo %ft/s
S = 260; %ft^2
c = 10.8; %ft
b = 27.5; % ft
AR = (b^2)/S
Ix = 8090; %Slug.ft^2
Iy = 25900; %Slug.ft^2
Iz = 29200; %Slug.ft^2
Ixz = 1300; %Slug.ft^2
Ixy = 0; Iyz = 0; %Slug.ft^2
g = 32.17095;
Weight = 17578; %Ibf
m = Weight/g %Ib
Q = (1/2)*rho*(Vo^2)
CL = Weight/(Q*S)
deltawing = 33; %degree, ( Taylor, John W. R., ed. : Jane's All the World's
%Aircraft, 1996-67 (McGraw-Hill Book Co., c. 1966)
e = 4.61*(1-0.045*(AR^0.68))*((cosd(deltawing))^0.15)-3.1 %Raymer
K = 1/(pi*AR*e)
CD = 2*K*(CL^2)

%Lateral Data
%Side Force Coefficient Derivatives
CYbeta = -1.04;
CYdeltar = 0.167; %due to rudder
CYp = 0;
CYr = 0;
CYdeltaa = 0;
%Yawing Moment Coefficient Derivatives
CNbeta = 0.28;
CNp = 0.038;
CNr = -0.40;
CNdeltaa = 0.007; %due to aileron
CNdeltar = -0.104; %due to rudder
%Rolling Moment Coefficient Derivatives
CLbeta = -0.175;
CLp = -0.294;
CLr = -0.26;
CLdeltaa = 0.07; %due to aileron
CLdeltar = 0.0356; %due to rudder
%Matrix Lateral Derivatives

IV
Ybeta = (Q*S*CYbeta)/m;
Nbeta = (Q*S*b*CNbeta)/Iz;
Lbeta = (Q*S*b*CLbeta)/Ix;
Yp = (Q*S*b*CYp)/(2*m*uo);
Np = (Q*S*(b^2)*CNp)/(2*Iz*uo);
Lp = (Q*S*(b^2)*CLp)/(2*Ix*uo);
Yr = (Q*S*b*CYr)/(2*Iz*uo);
Nr = (Q*S*(b^2)*CNr)/(2*Iz*uo);
Lr = (Q*S*(b^2)*CLr)/(2*Ix*uo);
Ydeltaa = (Q*S*CYdeltaa)/m;
Ydeltar = (Q*S*CYdeltar)/m;
Ndeltaa = (Q*S*b*CNdeltaa)/Iz;
Ndeltar = (Q*S*b*CNdeltar)/Iz;
Ldeltaa = (Q*S*b*CLdeltaa)/Ix;
Ldeltar = (Q*S*b*CLdeltar)/Ix;
thetanot = 0;

%Matrix A Lateral
Alat = [Ybeta/uo, Yp/uo, -(1-(Yr/uo)),(g*cos(thetanot))/uo;
Lbeta, Lp, Lr, 0;
Nbeta, Np, Nr, 0;
0, 1, 0, 0]

%Matrix B Lateral
Blat = [0, Ydeltar/uo;
Ldeltaa, Ldeltar;
Ndeltaa, Ndeltar;
0,0]
%Q2
Clat = eye(size(Alat));
Dlat = zeros(size(Blat));
[numlat denlat]=ss2tf(Alat,Blat,Clat,Dlat,1);
numlat
denlat
roots(denlat)
damp(Alat)

%Q3
% s-plane Graph%
-0.3028 + 4.3992i; % dutch roll
-0.3028 - 4.3992i; % dutch roll
-1.0765 + 0.0000i; % roll
-0.0682 + 0.0000i; % spiral

real_z1=real(z1);
imag_z1=imag(z1);
real_z2=real(z2);
imag_z2=imag(z2);
real_z3=real(z3);
imag_z3=imag(z3);
real_z4=real(z4);
imag_z4=imag(z4);
plot(real_z1,imag_z1,'*',real_z2,imag_z2,'*',real_z3,imag_z3,'*',real_z4,im
ag_z4,'*');
grid on
axis([-3,1,-10,10])

xlabel('REAL'),ylabel('IMAG');
title('GRAPH OF S-PLANE')

V
%Q4 and Q5
s=tf('s')
t1=0:0.01:10
rafter=( 7.21*s + 0.6547)/(s^2 + 6.2596*s + 19.9929)
step(rafter)
rbefore=( 7.21*s + 0.6547)/(s^2 + 0.5954*s + 19.4786)
step(rbefore,rafter)
legend('open loop system','closed loop control system')
ylabel('Yaw Rate,Rad/s')
a=(72.1*s + 6.547)/(s^3 + 16.2596*s^2 + 82.5889*s + 199.929)
step(a)
step(rbefore,rafter,a)
legend('open loop system','closed loop control system ','closed loop
control system with actuator ')
ylabel('Yaw Rate,rad/s')

%Q6
% For CSAS
clc;
clear all;
figure();
den_rud=[1 10];
C=tf(10,den_rud);
num=[-7.21 -0.6547];
den=[1 6.2596 19.9929];
P=tf(num,den);
rlocus(-C*P);
T=feedback(-C*P,0.608);
figure();step(T);ylabel('Yaw Altitude');
s= tf('s');
Ks=T/s;
K=feedback(Ks,10);

figure();rlocus(K);step(T);ylabel('Yaw Altitude');
figure();step(K);ylabel('Yaw altitude');
figure();step(T,K);ylabel('Yaw Attitude');
legend('inner loop','outer loop')
info_inner=stepinfo(T)
info_outer=stepinfo(K)

% For PID control

rud=tf([10],[1 10]);
Q=tf([-7.21 -0.6547],[1 6.2596 19.9929]);
s=tf('s');
Q=Q/s;
P=rud*Q;
damp(P)
%introduce Pid Controller
Kp=-0.5882;
Ki=-0.6460;
Kd=-0.1339;
C=Kp+Ki/s+Kd*s
R=tf(P*C)
Y=feedback(C*P,1);

figure();
step(K,'b',Y,'r');ylabel('Yaw Altitude');
legend('CSAS','PID')
figure();margin(K);figure();margin(Y);
info_CSAS=stepinfo(K)

VI
info_PID=stepinfo(Y)

VII