Sei sulla pagina 1di 9
Experimental and numerical results obtained for a scaled RPV and a full size aircraft Cezary

Experimental and numerical results obtained for a scaled RPV and a full size aircraft

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

The authors

The authors

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj are based at the Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland.

Keywords

Keywords

Stability (control theory), Aircraft, Tests and testing, Flight dynamics

Abstract

Abstract

This paper describes a series of tests of remotely piloted vehicles (RPV) and full scale aircraft from which most of the performance information and selected dynamic characteristics normally required for aircraft operation can be obtained. The main goal of the paper is to compare corresponding characteristics of RPVs and full scale aircraft and establish if RPV testing can help and influence an early stage design project in order to optimise its aerodynamic configuration and predict its static and dynamic characteristics. This paper presents basic similarity transformations, including mass scale, force scale, power scale, linear acceleration scale, Reynolds number scale etc. as functions of linear scale. It was found that tests in steady conditions are difficult to perform, time-consuming, and do not offer significant advantages over the classical wind tunnel tests. RPV tests in unsteady conditions are much easier to perform and quite accurate.

Electronic access

Electronic access

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · pp. 305–313 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0002-2667 DOI 10.1108/00022660410536041

Nomenclature

a ¼ wing lift-curve slope, C Lw /a

a 1

a 2

¼

tailplane lift-curve slope versus

angle of attack, C LH /a

¼

tailplane lift-curve slope versus elevator deflection, C LH /d H

A ¼ wing aspect ratio

A H

¼

¼

tailplane aspect ratio centre of gravity

tailplane aspect ratio centre of gravity

CG

C a ¼ MAC

C L

C D

C m

¼ Mean Aerodynamic Chord

¼ lift coefficient

¼ drag coefficient

¼ pitching moment coefficient, around the mean quarter-chord point A

¼ pitching moment coefficient of

C mwB,C

the wing-body combination abouttheCG(foranarbitrary C L )

C mwB,0

D i

D,

L , M

G

¼ mg

J y

M

Cy

¼ pitching moment coefficient of the wing-body combination about the CG for C L ¼0

¼ induced drag

¼

lift,dragandpitching momentfor whole aircraft

¼ weight of an aircraft or RPV

¼

moment of inertia about y axis

¼

aerodynamic pitching moment of

the whole aircraft about the CG

M

Cy T ¼ thrustpitchingmomentaboutthe CG

m

¼ mass of the whole aircraft

n

¼ n z

¼

normal load coefficient

q

¼ 0.5 rV 2

¼ dynamic pressure

P s

¼ thrust

Q

¼ pitch rate

S

¼ wing area

S H

¼

tailplane area

T ¼ period of damped oscillation

T 1/2

¼

time to half amplitude

U,W ¼ speed components in manoeuvre

¼ speedcomponentsinsteadyflight

¼ small disturbances of U, W

¼ co-ordinatesofaircraftpositionin the ground fixed axis system

¼ angle of attack ¼ elevator deflection ¼ trim tab deflection

U 0 ,W 0

u,w

x 0, z 0

a

d H

d T

1 ¼ downwash

1 0 d 1/d a

downwash when a ¼ 0

¼ ¼ slopeofdownwashversusangleof attack

u ¼ pitch angle

q ¼ small disturbance of u

X u , X w , X q , Z u , Z w ,

¼ dimensional stability derivatives

This paper presents some results from the PhD thesis of Cezary Galinski.

305

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

C Du , C Dw ,

C Dq , C Lu,

k H l L , l s , l N ,

¼ dimensionless stability derivatives ¼ horizontal tail volume

l Re , l St

¼ scale factors for linear dimension, area, power, Reynold’s number, Strouhal number, respectively

z

¼ damping ratio

j, h

¼ real and imaginary part of

v n

eigenvalue ¼ undamped frequency indices

A

¼ mean quarter-chord point

C

¼ mass centre of the whole aircraft

N

¼ neutral point of static stability

H

¼ tailplane

Introduction

Research performed on scale models during the initial phases of new aircraft development provides substantial increase of the programme’s profitability. Traditionally, these kinds of experiment included only wind tunnel tests. These have provided sufficient information for assessing most of the flight characteristics. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in manoeuvrability and handling qualities. There are many constraints in classical wind tunnel experiments, which reduce their usefulness for this current area of research. However tests of scale models (remotely piloted vehicles – RPVs) in real flight allow the detailed examination of all manoeuvres which are available for full scale aircraft. Therefore, these tests offer a very interesting research tool for aircraft during the early development phase (Bennet and Abel, 1982; DeAngelis, 1982; Edwards, 1983; Fair and Robinson, 1980; Gal-Or, 1995; Harris, 1997; Lindberg et al. , 1997; Murrow and Eckstrom, 1979; Newsom and Pototzky, 1982; Trego, 1996; Yip et al. , 1991, 1992). Over the last 30 years, numerous research programmes using RPVs were carried out by NASA (Bennet and Abel, 1982; Budd et al. , 1993; Cohen and Le, 1991; DeAngelis, 1982; Deets and Edwards, 1974; Edwards, 1983; Edwards and Deets, 1975; Fisher and Meyer, 1988; Fair and Robinson, 1980; Harris, 1997; Holleman, 1974, 1976; Iliff and Maine, 1974; Iliff et al. , 1975; Layton, 1974; Lindberg et al. 1997; Moes and Whitmore, n.d.; Murrow and Eckstrom, 1979; Newsom and Pototzky, 1982; Trego, 1996). These programmes explored the various and complex interactions of advanced technologies,

such as aeroelastic tailoring, close-coupled canard configurations and relaxed static stability. Many programmes were devoted to defining the design techniques appropriate for advanced fighter technologies, including high manoeuvrability and dynamics at high angles of attack. The high quality of flight-measured data and their close correlation with the analytical design modelling proved that RPVs create a viable and cost-effective tool for developing aerodynamic, structure and control law requirements for modern aircraft (Deets and Brown, 1986). To obtain strictly the similar results of measurement it is necessary to match all four (Katz and Plotkin, 1991) numbers of similarity (sometimes even more if heat transfer is included into analysis):

Re ¼ LV 0 =n – Reynolds number, representing the ratio between the inertial and viscous forces;

.

.

.

.

St ¼ L =TV ¼ L v=V – Strouhal number, representing the ratio between a characteristic speed (frequency of a periodic occurrence over a characteristic distance) to the undisturbed ffiffiffiffiffi speed;

Fr ¼

– Froude number, representing the

ratio of ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi inertial force to gravitational force;

M ¼

¼ V – Mach number,

q

V 2

0

gL

q

r 0 V 2 kp 0

0

a

representing the ratio of the velocity (local or undisturbed) to the speed of sound.

Usually, it is impossible to match all of these numbers in experiments on scaled RPV (Galinski, 1997). Experiments described in this paper were undertaken to establish if it is possible to predict the dynamic behaviour of the full-scale aircraft when some numbers of similarity criteria are not matched. To reach this goal a scaled RPV was built (Galinski, 1996; Galinski et al. , 1997) equipped and tested in flight (Plate 1). This was a copy of the J-5 Marco motorglider (certified in 1986). The theoretical part of the experiment involved separate calculations for the RPV and the full size aircraft.

Plate 1 Author with J-5 Marco RPV (Galinski, 1997)

separate calculations for the RPV and the full size aircraft. Plate 1 Author with J-5 Marco

306

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Finally, the results of these calculations were compared with flight test results. In the case of the full size aircraft the selected experimental data taken from the certification report were compared to the numerical results obtained on the basis of a mathematical model. It was assumed that these data corresponded to that of the final configuration. Unfortunately, because of financial limitations it was not possible to execute test flights on the RPV and the full-scale aircraft simultaneously.

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

. scale of the atmosphere density

l r ¼ r m

r 0

¼ 1

where r m is the density of the atmosphere corresponding to the test conditions of scaled model; and r 0 the density of the atmosphere corresponding to the test conditions of the full scale aircraft.

With these conditions fulfilled it was possible to develop the transformation presented in Table I.

Similarity transformation

Strouhal number is the most important in case of dynamic behaviour similarity, so it was assumed that it should be comparable in the model and the full size aircraft. Froude and Reynold’s numbers were assumed to be less important. Froude numbers are important when hydrodynamic effects are considered (for example waves on the water). Reynold’s numbers describe the flow in steady conditions so it is crucial in wind tunnel tests. It would be too difficult to match this number in the experiments described here, so it was decided to ignore it. However, the effects of changes in Reynold’s number were investigated. Experiments were constrained to low Mach numbers ðM , 0:3Þ: However, it is believed that it would be possible to match the Mach number in future experiments by careful selection of the test conditions. In these conditions, the effect of differences in Re number would also be decreased. Finally it was decided to match the Strouhal number only. A similarity transformation frequently used for the design of flying replicas satisfies this condition (Gal-Or, 1994; Stinton, 1983). Matching the Strouhal number was achieved fulfilling the following assumptions:

.

.

scale of the gravity acceleration was equal to unity:

l g ¼ g m ¼ 1

g

0

where g m is the gravity acceleration of scaled- model, and g 0 the gravity acceleration of full- scale aircraft;

scale of the aircraft density was equal to unity:

l ra ¼ r ma

r oa

¼ 1

where r ma is the density of the scaled model; and r oa the density of the full scale object;

Aircraft selection

The J-5 Marco motorglider was selected for testing because of its predictable, mild dynamic characteristics including laminar flow over the wing airfoil, characteristic soft stall and a very good spin behaviour (Pamadi, 1998). It was assumed that if these features transfer to the scaled RPV that it would be very good “proof of the concept” that dynamic characteristics can be evaluated at early design stage by use of scaled model. An important factor was that the geometry of the J-5 Marco was quite simple and it facilitates the fabrication of a scale model. Good access to the design figures with geometry details and flight test results was also an important factor in this choice. Finally, the Marco Mini (RPV) was expected to be relatively easy to control compared to other aircraft being considered (Galinski, 1996).

Linear scale selection

A linear scale equal to 1/3 was chosen. The Reynold’s number for the RPV on this scale corresponds to Re . 2; 00; 000 for an angle of

Table I

Linear scale Area scale

l l l S ¼ l 2

l

Volume scale Mass scale Force scale Force momentum scale Inertia momentum scale Velocity scale Time scale Rotation velocity scale Power scale Linear acceleration scale Reynolds number scale Strouhal number scale

l vol ¼ l 3

l

l m ¼ l 3 l F ¼ l 3 l M ¼ l 4 l J ¼ l 5

l V ¼ l t ¼

l v ¼ 1=

l

l

l

l

p

p

ffiffiffiffi

ffiffiffiffi

l

l

ffiffiffiffi

l

l

p

l

l

l N ¼ l 3:5

l

l a ¼ 1

l Re ¼ l 1:5

l

l St ¼ 1

307

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

attack close to stall. An Re ¼ 2; 00; 000 was expected to be the critical Reynold’s number. Below this limit value the changes of aerodynamic coefficients are expected to be unacceptably large. On the other hand, the scale equal to 1/3 reduced the cost of the RPV and made it easy to manufacture and operate (11 kg mass and 3 m wing span).

Flight test equipment

Serial manufactured radio control system Multiplex Profi mc 4000 with Multiplex PCM9DS receiver and Multiplex Royal MC servos were used. Graupner NEJ-120 gyrostabilisers were utilised for experiments in steady conditions. Data acquisition system based on telemetry was considered first, but problems with quality of radio data transmission and higher costs determined that the system should be based on an on-board data recorder. The system used consisted of the following. (1) Eight channel programmable microprocessor data logger (2) set of transducers:

differential pressure transducer for velocity measurements;

absolute pressure transducer for barometric height measurements;

differential pressure transducer for accurate relative height measurements;

linear accelerometer;

. servopotentiometers for angle indication of controls. (3) software for the following tasks:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

to configure the data logger;

to supervise the data collection process;

to communicate between logger and PC;

to archive the data;

to present the data;

to convert the data to ASCII format;

A Micro TV system was also installed on-board. It was used mainly for visualisation experiments.

Flight test programme

The following features of the RPV were used for experimental data determination:

velocity hodograph for power-off flight (Smith, 2002);

lift to drag polar;

elevator deflection as speed function;

phugoid oscillations with free stick;

maximum available normal acceleration versus speed.

.

.

.

.

.

Moreover, some qualitative features were tested including visualisation of flow around the wing.

Mathematical model

STB 9702 package (Goraj, 1997) was applied for dynamic analysis. This package permits the computation of selected characteristics of dynamic stability in steady horizontal flight. In the case under consideration the following assumptions have been introduced:

.

.

.

aircraft has a plane of symmetry;

angles of sideslip, bank and path are equal to zero;

Mach number and the angle of attack are small.

Under these assumptions the differential equations of motion together with kinematic relationships have the following form:

M d x=dt ¼ Bx ;

where matrices of mass, generalised stiffness and vector of state are as follows:

M ¼

2

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6 6

6

4

B ¼

m

0

0

0

2mz

0

0

0

000

m

0

mz

0

2 mx

0

0

0

m 2 Z w_

0

2M w_

0

0

0

X q

0

mz

0

J x

0

2J xz

0

0

Z q þ mV

0

2mz

0

mx

0

J y

0

0

0

0

0

2mz

0

2J xz

0

J z

0

0

3

7

0 0 7

00

7 7

00 7

7 7

7 7

7

7

7

7 7

7

7

5

01

10

0 0

00

0 0

0

G

2

6

6 6

6

6 6

6

6

6 6

6

6

6

6 6

6

6 6

6

6

6

6 6

4

X u 0 X w 0

0 Y v 0 Y p

Z u 0 Z w 0

0

0

0

L v

0 L p

2G

0

Y r 2 mV

0

L r 2 mzV

0

N r þ mxV

0

0

00

0

Gz

0

0

0

2Gz

0

2Gx

0

0

0 M w 0 M q þ mxV

N v 0 N p

0

0000 1

0001 0

X T ¼½ u ; v ; w; p ; q; r ; d; f :

;

3

7

7 7

7

7 7

7

7 7

7

7

7

7

7 7

7

7 7

7

7

7

7 7

5

308

;

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

Symbols x ; y ; z denote co-ordinates of the aircraft mass centre in the stability frame of reference Axyz (Ax axis is originated in 25 per cent of MAC and directed back of the aircraft along the undisturbed

flow velocity), and X u , X w , N p ;

dimensional stability derivatives computed in the

stability frame of reference. The eigenvalues corresponding to matrix equation are

l i ¼ j i þ ih i ;

stand for the

where an imaginary part h i can be in particular equal to zero for aperiodic motion. Various combinations of h and j are useful in stability analysis as (Nelson, 1989):

.

damping ratio

6 ¼

2j

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

p

j 2 þ h 2

Figure 1 Balanced polars

p j 2 þ h 2 Figure 1 Balanced polars . . . undamped frequency v

.

.

.

undamped frequency

v n ¼

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

p

j 2 þ h 2

period of damped oscillation

T ¼ 2p

h

time to half (or time to double)

T 1=2 ¼ ln 2

2j

and so on. Stability derivatives were calculated based on Engineering Sciences Data Unit, (ESDU, n.d.) Data Sheets.

Comparison between numerical and experimental results

Not all results could be compared, because in many cases the certification report for the J-5 airplane did not contain numerical data corresponding to those received from the calculations and vice versa. Among comparable characteristics were: velocity hodograph, elevator deflection versus speed and phugoid oscillations, damping and frequency coefficients. In Figure 1, the so-called balanced polars are presented. They were obtained from lift and drag measurements both for the airplane and the RPV. Two other polars were obtained from the wind tunnel tests and from theoretical calculations. Wind tunnel and free flight RPV experiments gave results comparable to full scale aircraft measurements. In this case characteristics found

either by use of wind tunnel tests or by use of RPV are less optimistic than that of the full scale aircraft. The relatively low accuracy of the wind tunnel tests for small C L values can be explained by the fact that a constant Reynolds number was kept during the test. This gave better accuracy

for higher C L values and worse for small C L values. The lower values determined by calculation were probably caused by underestimation of the following drag components: landing gear, engine cowling, gaps between cockpit canopy and others. In numerical calculations of dynamic stability the polar of the full scale aircraft and the RPV were used because the calculated polars were too low (Figure 1) which could have a large influence on aerodynamic damping. Figure 2 shows relationships between velocity and elevator deflection, corresponding to the trimmed flight case. One can observe that the elevator must be more deflected in the case of RPV than in the case of the full scale aircraft. This difference is higher (about 1.58) at small C L and decreases to lower value (about 0.58) at higher C L . Measurements of phugoid oscillations were performed by a “hands off” method (elevator free, with hinge moment equal to zero due to the deflected trim tab). In the case of the RPV the elevator drive could be remotely connected and disconnected. During the preparation for measurements, the effect of trim tab on flight velocity was also tested by the “hands off” method. Application of the trim tab on the RPV gave very similar results to that for the full scale aircraft. The difference between the steady state flight airspeeds of the RPV and the full scale aircraft

309

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Figure 2 Elevator’s deflection vs lift coefficient

Figure 2 Elevator’s deflection vs lift coefficient (rescaled for the RPV) was equal to 7.5 per

(rescaled for the RPV) was equal to 7.5 per cent (the worse case) if trim tab relative dimensions and deflections were equal. Figures 3-4 shows time to half amplitude and the period of oscillations for the phugoid mode. In both cases quite good agreement of the measured and calculated values are observed. However, this consistency was obtained by the application of experimentally obtained drag polars. The results were not as consistent when the theoretical drag polars were used instead of full scale aircraft characteristics. Unfortunately, no stability data for the short period, Dutch Roll and spiral modes were available from the certification report of J-5 Marco. Only a qualitative description, written by the test pilot, was accessible.

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

Figure 4 Phugoid oscillations: period of oscillations

Figure 4 Phugoid oscillations: period of oscillations Other results Figure 5 shows the relationship between

Other results

Figure 5 shows the relationship between maximum load factor available in flight versus velocity. It is apparent that data for the full scale aircraft and the RPV are comparable. This is a very interesting observation. In steady flow conditions (easy obtained in a wind tunnel test) the maximum lift coefficient is usually much lower for lower Re numbers. In unsteady flow conditions, C Lmax seems to be much less sensitive to the Re number. The full scale aircraft was tested at two flight conditions only. These corresponded to the following flight parameters: { V ¼ 95 km=h; n ¼ 3:9Þ and ð V ¼ 104 km=h; n ¼ 4Þ:

Other experiments were mainly of a qualitative nature. In all cases (i.e. in loop, roll and stall

Figure 3 Phugoid oscillations: time to half

(i.e. in loop, roll and stall Figure 3 Phugoid oscillations: time to half Figure 5 Load

Figure 5 Load factor available in flight

(i.e. in loop, roll and stall Figure 3 Phugoid oscillations: time to half Figure 5 Load

310

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

behaviour) the pilot reported that the RPV and the full scale aircraft were dynamically similar and consistent. Also the visualisation tests showed that the flows around the wings both of the RPV and the full scale aircraft were similar (Plates 2-5 and Figure 6).

Plate 2 Stall with flaperons deflected up (Galinski, 1997)

2 Stall with flaperons deflected up (Galinski, 1997) Plate 3 Entrance to the loop. Loop angle

Plate 3 Entrance to the loop. Loop angle ,358, flow attached over the whole wing surface (Galinski, 1997)

flow attached over the whole wing surface (Galinski, 1997) Plate 4 Loop angle , 100 8

Plate 4 Loop angle ,1008, flow attached over the whole wing except fourth tuft in the eighth row (Galinski, 1997)

wing except fourth tuft in the eighth row (Galinski, 1997) 311 Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

311

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

Plate 5 Departure from the loop. Loop angle ,2858, flow attached over the whole wing surface except fourth tuft in rows No. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Galinski, 1997)

tuft in rows No. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Galinski, 1997) Accuracy of RPV

Accuracy of RPV measurements

It should be mentioned that all steady flight experiments were very difficult and time-consuming to perform. The lesson learnt from these measurements is that due to atmospheric turbulence it was very difficult to achieve calm conditions over a longer period of time. This explains why the results of the steady- state experiments are so highly scattered. In the dynamic experiments calm conditions were much easier to achieve because they were only required for a short period of time. Inconsistent data were also easier to detect and if necessary excluded because it was rare and deviated significantly from the majority of the results.

Conclusions

.

.

.

.

RPV tests in steady conditions are difficult to perform, time-consuming, and do not have significant advantages over classical wind tunnel tests;

RPV tests in unsteady conditions are much easier to perform and quite accurate. Reynolds number seems to have much less influence on both the aerodynamic coefficients and stability derivatives in unsteady conditions compared to steady conditions;

RPV tests can contribute to early design correction of an aircraft’s aerodynamic characteristics;

RPV tests can decrease the risk and help to predict the flight test behaviour of the full scale aircraft.

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

Figure 6 Flow over the wing at the top of “hammerhead stall” (Galinski, 1997)

wing at the top of “hammerhead stall” (Galinski, 1997) References Bennet, R.M. and Abel, I. (1982),

References

Bennet, R.M. and Abel, I. (1982),

Budd, G., Gilman, R. and Eichstedt, D. (1993), Operational and Research Aspects of a Radio-Controlled Model Flight Test Program, NASA TM 104266, January 1993. Cohen, D. and Le, J. (1991), The Role of the Remotely Augmented Vehicle (RAV) Laboratory in Flight Research, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, NASA TM

104235.

DeAngelis, V.M. (1982),

Deets, D. and Brown, L. (1986), “Wright brothers lectureship in aeronautics: experience with HiMAT remotely piloted research vehicle – an alternate flight test approach”, AIAA Aircraft Systems, Design and Technology Meeting, Dayton, OH. Deets, D. and Edwards, J. (1974), A Remotely Augmented Vehicle Approach to Flight Testing RPV Control Systems, NASA TM X-56029, NASA Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA.

Edwards, J.W. (1983),

pp. 267-74.
pp. 267-74.

Edwards, J. and Deets, D. (1975), Development of a Remote Digital Augmentation System and Application to a

Remotely Piloted Research Vehicle, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, NASA TN D-7941. ESDU (n.d.), Aerodynamic Sub-Series, The Royal Aeronautical Society, London, pp. 251-9. Fisher, D. and Meyer, R. Jr (1988), Flow Visualization Techniques for Flight Research, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, NASA TM 100455.

Fair, G. and Robinson, M.R. (1980),

Galinski, C. (1996), “Flight tests of the dynamic similar model of the J-5 Marco motorglider”, Proceedings of the Conference on Recent Research and Design Progress in Aeronautical Engineering and its Influence on Education, Warsaw, IAAM Bulletin No. 7, pp. 181-4.

312

Galinski, C., (1997) “An application of remotely piloted vehicles for determination of selected dynamic and aerodynamic characteristics of an aircraft”, PhD thesis, unpublished Warsaw University of Technology, in Polish, Warsaw. Galinski, C., Bartkiewicz, P., Hajduk, J. and Lamers, P. (1997), “Results of the J-5 Marco dynamic similar model flight tests program”, SAE paper No. 975551, World Aviation Congress, 13-16 October 1997, Anaheim, CA. Gal-Or, B. (1994), “Fundamentals and similarity transformations of vectored aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31 No. 1. Gal-Or, B. (1995), “Thrust vector control eyed for passenger aircraft: a nove methodology to combine jet – engine tests with sub-scale proof-of-concept flight tests”, International Journal of Turbo Jet Engines, Vol. 12. Goraj, Z. (1997), Calculation of Controllability, Balance and Stability of an Airplane in Subsonic Range of Speed, Warsaw Technical University, Faculty of Power and Aeronautical Engineering, Warsaw 1984 (in Polish). See also the Manual for STB-9702 – The Computer Code for Calculation of Equilibrium, Static and Dynamic Stability of

an Aircraft for Subsonic Speeds, Warsaw. Harris, W.J. (1997), X – 36 Tailless Agility Aircraft Subsystems Integration, SAE paper No. 975505, World Aviation Congress, Anaheim, CA. Holleman, E. (1974), Initial Results from Flight Testing a Large, Remotely Piloted Airplane Model, NASA TM-X-56024, NASA Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. Holleman, E. (1976), Summary of Flight Tests to Determine the Spin and Controllability Characteristics of a Remotely Piloted, Large-Scale (3/8) Fighter Airplane Model, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, NASA TN D-8052. Iliff, K. and Maine, R. (1974), Practical Aspects of Using a Maximum Likehood Estimation method to Extract Stability and Control Derivatives From Flight Data, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, NASA TN D-8209.

Iliff, K., Maine, R. and Shafer, M. (1975), Subsonic Stability and Control Derivatives for an Unpowered, Remotely piloted 3/ 8-Scale F-15 Airplane Model Obtained from Flight Test,

Flight Research Center, NASA, Edwards, CA. Katz, J. and Plotkin, A. (1991), Low-Speed Aerodynamics – From Wing Theory to Panel Method, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

Experimental and numerical results

Cezary Galinski and Zdobyslaw Goraj

Layton, G. (1974), NASA Flight Research Center Scale F-15 Remotely Piloted Research Vehicle Program, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA,

SFTE-1974.

Lindberg, R., Schade, C. and Feconda, R. (1997), “X-34: a prelude to a military space plane”, World Aviation Congress, SAE paper No. 97-WAC-229, 13-16 October, Anaheim, CA. Moes, T. and Whitmore, S. (n.d.), A Preliminary Look at Techniques Used to Obtain Airdata From Flight at High Angles of Attack, NASA TM 101729, Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA.

Murrow, H.N. and Eckstrom, C.V. (1979),

“Drones for
“Drones for

Nelson, R. (1989), Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.

Newsom, J.R. and Pototzky, A.S. (1982),

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Volume 76 · Number 3 · 2004 · 305–313

pp. 1012-8.
pp. 1012-8.

Pamadi, B.N. (1998), Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes, AIAA Educational Series. Smith, H. (2002), Understanding Performance Flight Testing – Kitplanes and Production Aircraft, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Stinton, D. (1983), The Design of the Aeroplane, Granada Publishing, reprint BSP Professional Books 1987, 1989. Trego, L. (1996), “Tailless research aircraft”, Aerospace Engineering. Yip, L.P., Fratello, D.J., Robelen, D.B. and Makowiec, G.M. (1991),

pp. 728-34.
pp. 728-34.

Yip, L.P., Ross, H. and Robelen, D.B. (1992),

“Model
“Model
Vol. 29 No. 5,
Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 799-804.
pp. 799-804.

313