Search or ask a question
Pricing
Login
Sign up
Home
Notebook
Profile
Citation booster
Literature Review
Copilot
Citation generator
Paraphraser
AI Detector
Chrome Extension
Talk with us
Use on ChatGPT
All figures (33)
Figure 5.10: Longitudinal and lateral stick time histories for the offset high left approach using both methods.
Figure 2.3: Three-dimensional AMS rotated such that the view point is looking down the z-axis of the problem.
Figure 4.4: AMS described by the original Control Effectivness Matrix B with Scaled Final B used in the Research.
Figure 4.3: AMS described by the scaled Control Effectivness Matrix B plotted with the desired moments of the offset approach task.
Figure 5.7: Desired moment time histories plotted with attained moments for the offset left approach using the method of scaling the moment direction.
Figure 1.2: General Attainable Moment Subset for a 4 Control Problem
Figure 5.2: Comparison of the saturation of control surfaces between scaling the moment direction and prioritizing the pitch axis for an offset left maneuver.
Figure 5.11: Angle of attack time histories for the offset high left approach using both methods.
Figure 5.15: Desired moment time histories plotted with attained moments for the offset high left approach using the method of pitch prioritization.
Figure 5.14: Desired moment time histories plotted with attained moments for the offset high left approach using the method of preserving the moment direction.
Table 3.1: Control Surfaces on the testbed airframe.
Figure 4.5: AMS as viewed down the +x-axis with the desired moments of the offset approach maneuver superimposed.
Figure 2.1: Two-dimensional AMS. Star represents the starting vertex of the AMS. x and y axes correspond to arbitrary moment directions.
Figure 5.8: Desired moment time histories plotted with attained moments for the offset left approach using the method of pitch prioritization.
Figure 5.13: Desired moment time histories for the offset high left approach using both methods.
Figure 3.1: Block Diagram of the Testbed Airframe Simulation Structure
Figure 1.1: Control Loop Block Diagram
Figure 4.6: AMS as viewed down the +x-axis. The method of control vector scaling is implemented.
Figure 4.7: AMS as viewed down the +x-axis. The method of pitch prioritization is implemented.
Figure 4.1: AMS described by the original Control Effectivness Matrix B.
Figure 5.4: Angle of attack time histories for the offset left approach using both methods.
Figure 5.5: Aircraft pitch and roll rate time histories for the offset left approach using both methods.
Figure 1.4: Method of prioritizing the pitch axis
Figure 1.3: Method of scaling control solution vector to preserve moment direction
Figure 3.2: Control Loop Block Diagram
Figure 5.1: Path of the airframe during a high left offset carrier landing approach.
Figure 4.8: AMS as viewed down the +x-axis. The method of pitch prioritization is implemented during the case where control power is insufficient for attaining the desired amount of pitching moment.
Figure 5.9: Comparison of the saturation of control surfaces between scaling the moment direction and prioritizing the pitch axis for an offset high left maneuver.
Figure 2.2: 3 dimensional AMS orientated such that the x-axis (desired objective) is viewed coming out of a specific facet.
Figure 5.12: Aircraft pitch and roll rate time histories for the offset high left approach using both methods.
Figure 4.2: AMS described by the original Control Effectivness Matrix B plotted with the desired moments of the offset approach task.
Figure 5.6: Desired moment time histories for the offset left approach using both methods.
Figure 5.3: Longitudinal and lateral stick time histories for the offset left approach using both methods.
Proceedings Article
•
DOI
•
A Comparison of Two Methods Used to Deal with Saturation of Multiple, Redundant Aircraft Control Effectors
[...]
Mark David Nelson
1
•
Institutions (1)
Virginia Tech
1
05 Aug 2002
-