Conference PaperPDF Available

Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft

Authors:

Abstract

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1029.vid This study proposes a strategy to incorporate control and stability aspects into the preliminarydesign of a tandem-wing, long-range eVTOL aircraft concept. Four operational phases areconsidered: cruise, transition, hover, and ground operation. For cruise, a method to designfor open-loop stability and size aerodynamic control surfaces is presented. Furthermore, acontroller is designed to improve handling qualities. For hover controllability by differentialthrust is considered, and for ground operation, the positioning of the landing gear is performedaccording to clearance and tip-over requirements. A novel analytical model is derived for thetandem wing aircraft in order to estimate during the preliminary design phase the stabilityderivatives of the aerodynamic forces and moments. The transition manoeuvre between verticaland horizontal flight is only treated with qualitative considerations, due to the highly nonlineardynamics involved during this flight phase.
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL
aircraft
Miguel Cuadrat-Grzybowski , Jakob J. Schoser , and Saullo G. P. Castro
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2629 HS Delft, Netherlands
This study proposes a strategy to incorporate control and stability aspects into the preliminary
design of a tandem-wing, long-range eVTOL aircraft concept. Four operational phases are
considered: cruise, transition, hover, and ground operation. For cruise, a method to design
for open-loop stability and size aerodynamic control surfaces is presented. Furthermore, a
controller is designed to improve handling qualities. For hover controllability by differential
thrust is considered, and for ground operation, the positioning of the landing gear is performed
according to clearance and tip-over requirements. A novel analytical model is derived for the
tandem wing aircraft in order to estimate during the preliminary design phase the stability
derivatives of the aerodynamic forces and moments. The transition manoeuvre between vertical
and horizontal flight is only treated with qualitative considerations, due to the highly nonlinear
dynamics involved during this flight phase.
I. Introduction
Control and stability of eVTOL vehicles is a challenging topic due to the great variety of flight conditions encountered
between vertical take-off and landing, transition and cruise. This study presents a set of methods to be used in the
preliminary design stage of an eVTOL aircarft to design for stability and controllability.
The subject of this study is the Wigeon, an eVTOL concept that was developed by ten students at the Delft University
of Technology [
1
]. It is a long-range tandem tilt-wing eVTOL for four passengers designed to take off and land on
conventional helipads. The Wigeon is targeted towards European, North American and Southeast Asian markets for
comfortable inter-city travel with short door-to-door travel times [
2
]. The thrust for both vertical and horizontal flight is
generated using open propellers [
3
] placed on the leading edges of the wings, which rotate during the transition phase.
A render of the eVTOL can be seen in Figure 1. The most important characteristics of the aircraft are summarised in
Table 1. These parameters were obtained through an iterative design process, which incorporated the methods presented
in this study [1].
The article begins with a section II on estimating the location of the centre of gravity, which is relevant for stability
and control in all flight phases. The subsequent sections are structured according to the different operational phases
of the Wigeon. In section III, a novel procedure to evaluate and design for open-loop stability and controllability of
tandem-wing aircraft in cruise is presented, along with sizing of aerodynamic control surfaces and the design of a
feedback controller to improve handling qualities. Following this, section IV contains an analysis of controllability in
hover, and the implications for the centre of mass and rotor placement. In section V, the intermediate stage between
cruise and hover is discussed: transition. In section VI, it is explained how considerations of ground stability enter the
design process. Section VII, finally, combines the aspects of the previous sections by suggesting a way to integrate
stability and control into an iterative, multi-disciplinary design process. The article concludes with an overview of
verification procedures in Appendix A, as well as the most important results and recommendations for future work in
section VIII.
Corresponding author, BSc student, email: M.Cuadrat-Grzybowski@student.tudelft.nl
Corresponding author, BSc student, ORCID: 0000-0002-5663-4921, email: jakob.schoser@gmail.com
Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, ORCID: 0000-0001-9711-0991, email: S.G.P.Castro@tudelft.nl
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 1 Render of the long-range eVTOL in cruise configuration.
Table 1 Design parameters of Wigeon
Parameter Value
MTOM [kg] 2790.1
OEM [kg] 1428.9
Range [km] 400
Cruise speed [m/s] 72.2
Stall speed [m/s] 40
No. passengers and pilot [-] 5
Parameter Value
Wing span [m] 8.2
Total wing area [m2] 19.8
Fuselage length [m] 7.3
Lift to drag ratio [-] 16.3
No. of engines [-] 12
Maximum thrust per rotor [N] 3745
II. Centre of Gravity Location
As a first step in each design iteration for stability and control, the centre of gravity (CG) range needs to be identified.
The location of the CG depends on the positioning of the aircraft components (which make up the operational empty
weight), as well as the loading state. Figure 2 shows an exemplary loading diagram, which illustrates the movement of
the CG location during the loading and boarding of the aircraft. The eVTOL must be stable and controllable on the
ground and in the air for any CG within this range, such that it can be flown with different loading configurations. With
only 7 cm, the CG range is very small. This is due to the passengers, which make up the largest portion of the payload,
being located close to the CG. Furthermore, the use of batteries means that neither the mass nor the CG location change
during refuelling.
III. Stability and Control in Cruise
Most of the flight time of the Wigeon will be spent in cruise, so it is essential that the aircraft is easy and safe to fly
in this configuration. This section explores stability and control for a tandem wing aircraft with the following structure:
subsection III.A derives expressions for the CG limits due to static longitudinal stability and pitch controllability. These
limits are then used to perform an optimal sizing and positioning of the wings with respect to each other, as explained
in subsection III.B. In subsection III.C, the sizing process for the vertical tail and aerodynamic control surfaces is
detailed. This is followed by a derivation of analytical expressions for linearised stability and control derivatives in
subsection III.D, as well as simulation results for open-loop dynamics in subsection III.E. Finally, in subsection III.F, a
design for a controller is proposed to improve the handling qualities of the Wigeon.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 2 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 2 An exemplary loading diagram, showing the change of the CG x-position as a function of the loading
state (origin at the nose, x-axis pointing aft). The assumed order of loading in this case is first luggage, then the
pilot, and finally the passengers. Two alternative boarding patterns are shown: back to front and front to back.
A. CG Limits due to Static Longitudinal Stability and Pitch Controllability
All control moments depend on the location of the centre of gravity, since that determines the moment arm that
the control force has. However, the pitch moment
𝑀
is especially affected because the weight acts in the X-Z-plane.
Therefore, only the criterion for pitch controllability is be addressed here while roll and yaw criteria are discussed in
subsection III.C, where the control surfaces are sized.
The free-body diagram of the tandem wing configuration representing straight, symmetric horizontal flight including
aerodynamic forces and the weight can be seen in Figure 3.
Fig. 3 Free-body diagram showing all aerodynamic loads at horizontal flight with associated distances for the
tandem wing configuration.
The non-dimensional moment at the CG is as follows:
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 3 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
𝐶𝑚=𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ¯𝑐𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐𝐶𝐷𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐+𝐶𝑇𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐+𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·(𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 )𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐
+𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
· (𝐶𝐷𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 ·𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐𝐶𝐿𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 ·(𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐 𝑔 )𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐+𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 ¯𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐𝐶𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐)(1)
The subscript
𝑓 𝑤𝑑
is for the forward wing and
𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
is related to the most aft wing.
𝐶𝑇𝑖
is the thrust coefficient defined
as the thrust normalised by the dynamic pressure force.
𝑉𝑟
is the velocity felt by the rear wing.
𝑆
and
¯𝑐
are the mean
aerodynamic chord and area of the entire aircraft. In this section the following are assumed to be as:
𝑆=𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑 +𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 (2) ¯𝑐=𝑠𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 ·¯𝑐𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 +𝑠𝑟 𝑒 𝑎𝑟 ·¯𝑐𝑟 𝑒 𝑎𝑟 (3)
with
𝑠𝑖
being the ratio of the wing area
𝑆𝑖
by the total area
𝑆
.
𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐
is the aerodynamic moment coefficient at the
aerodynamic centre,
𝑥𝑎𝑐
is the horizontal location of the aerodynamic centre and
𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
and
𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑
are the vertical
distances between the aerodynamic centre of the rear wing and forward wing respectively and the centre of gravity. It
can be seen that the normal force components are neglected as they are known to be small and can be neglected when
the free stream is normal to the propeller area [4].
In order to evaluate the aircraft’s natural controllability without differential thrust or thrust vectoring, thrust is
neglected for further estimations. The further the centre of gravity moves forward, the more difficult it becomes to pitch
the aircraft up. In order for it to be controllable, the aircraft must be able to attain
𝐶𝑚>
0even at its most forward
centre of gravity position.
𝑥𝑐𝑔 >1
𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑 +𝐶𝐿𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑉𝑟
𝑉2(𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑥𝑎 𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 +𝐶𝐷𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ¯𝑐𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑉𝑟
𝑉2𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝐶𝐿𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 ¯𝑐𝑟 𝑒 𝑎𝑟 +𝐶𝐷𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 )(4)
where the limit of controllability is the trim condition where
𝐶𝑚=
0;
𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑
can be influenced by installing mobile
surfaces on the trailing edge of the front wing. The distributed rotors would increase their effectiveness and help to
achieve higher magnitudes of
𝐶𝐿
. These mobiles surfaces are elevators (with elevator deflection
𝛿𝑒
) which increase the
control authority over the aircraft.
The limiting factor for static open-loop stability is at high velocities. Hence, the aircraft must be statically stable at
cruise where the highest velocity is achieved.
In order to estimate the stability properties of the design, for a step disturbance in the angle of attack
𝛼
, the moment
equation seen in Equation 1 is differentiated w.r.t. to 𝛼leading to:
𝐶𝑚𝛼=𝜕𝐶𝑚/𝜕𝛼 =𝐶𝐷𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐+𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·(𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 )𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐
+𝐶𝐷𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 · (1𝜕𝜖
𝜕𝛼 ) · 𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑟 𝑒 𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 · (1𝜕𝜖
𝜕𝛼 ) · (𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑔 )𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎 𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
(5)
where
𝜕𝜖
𝜕𝛼
is the downwash effect felt by the rear wing. The latter can be estimated using Equation 6 from [
5
] (with the
addition of 𝜂𝜖).
𝑑𝜖
𝑑𝛼 =𝜂𝜖
𝐾𝜖Λ
𝐾𝜖Λ=0
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝜋 𝐴𝑅 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 (𝑟
𝑟2+𝑚2
𝑡𝑣
0.4876
𝑟2+0.6319 +𝑚2
𝑡𝑣
+"1+𝑟2
𝑟2+0.7915 +5.0734𝑚2
𝑡𝑣 0.3113#·
1𝑚2
𝑡𝑣
1+𝑚2
𝑡𝑣 )(6)
where
𝑚𝑡𝑣 =
2
·𝑣𝑡/𝑏
(where
𝑣𝑡
is the vertical distance between the rear wing aerodynamic centre and the forward wing
aerodynamic centre). An assumption is made based on the geometry of the aircraft that both wings are perfectly straight,
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 4 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 4 Variation of the downwash gradient of the front wing on the rear wing with changing total wing surface
area (where the ratio of wing areas is kept constant). Both results obtained using Equation 6 and lifting-line
theory are displayed.
resulting in
𝑣𝑡
being equal to the maximum height of the fuselage. The parameter
𝑟=
2
· (𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑎 𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 )/𝑏𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
(with
𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑
being the span of the forward wing) and
𝐾𝜖Λ
is a function of the quarter chord sweep angle
Λ𝑐/4
of the
forward wing [6].
The factor
𝜂𝜖
is a correction factor applied to the downwash gradient to better match the results obtained using the
lifting line theory [
7
]. Figure 4 shows an exemplary sensitivity analysis of the downwash gradient, which reveals that
Equation 6 overestimated the downwash gradient by roughly a factor of 2. Therefore, it is set that 𝜂𝜖=0.5.
Furthermore, for propeller aircraft, an additional downwash is created due to the propellers which has to be taken
into account. This is written as follows [6]:
𝑑𝜖
𝑑𝛼 𝑝
=6.5(𝑠𝑖𝑛(6𝜙))2.5· 𝜌·𝑃2
𝑏𝑟 ·𝑆3
𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·𝐶3
𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑙4
·𝑊3!1/4
(7)
where
𝜙
is the angle between the wings defined as
𝜙=𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝑚𝑡 𝑣 /𝑟)
,
𝑃𝑏𝑟
is the shaft power per engine and
𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑
is
the lift coefficient for the cruise condition.
It is now essential to estimate the drag derivatives 𝐶𝐷𝛼using the polar drag equation leading to:
𝐶𝐷𝛼𝑖
=2·𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖
𝐶𝐿𝑖
𝜋𝐴𝑅𝑖𝑒𝑖
(8)
with 𝐶𝐿𝑖being the lift coefficient of one of the wings in cruise condition.
For static longitudinal stability, it is required that
𝐶𝑚𝛼<
0, such that the aircraft restores its initial state after a
disturbance in angle of attack. This results in the neutral stability CG position curve as follows:
𝑥𝑐𝑔 =©«
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 +𝐶𝐷𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑧𝑐 𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 + (𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝐶𝐷𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑧𝑐 𝑔𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 )(1𝜕𝜖
𝜕𝛼 )𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 +𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟
𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑 (1𝜕𝜖
𝜕𝛼 )𝑉𝑟
𝑉2ª®®¬
(9)
At this point, it is essential to verify the sensitivity of the latter equation w.r.t to the aspect ratio design variable. As
it can be seen that
𝑥𝑐𝑔𝑚𝑎 𝑥
is a function of
𝐶𝐿𝛼
of both wings and that the latter is a function of the aspect ratio
𝐴𝑅
, it
must be seen how sensitive the maximum value is to a change in the aspect ratio. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
From Figure 5, it can be seen that the most aft allowable cg position does vary significantly. An increase in aspect
ratio is hence favourable for the stability limit. This must be taken into consideration for future design phases.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 5 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 5 Sensitivity analysis on the aft CG position as a function of 𝐴𝑅.
B. Relative Wing Sizing and Placement
As Equation 9 shows, the location of the neutral point and thus static longitudinal stability in cruise depends strongly
on the geometry and positioning of the wings. More specifically, it depends on the ratio of wing surfaces
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 /𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
,
𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑
,
𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
,
𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑
, and
𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
. Moreover, there are indirect geometric dependencies through other terms in
Equation 9.
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑
and
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
do not only depend on the
𝐶𝑙𝛼
of their respective aerofoils. Instead, they are given by Equation 10
[
8
]. From this, it can be seen that
𝐶𝐿𝛼
depends on wing aspect ratio, sweep and aerofoil lift slope. The last two are taken
as fixed based on aerodynamic considerations [7]. Therefore, the aspect ratio 𝐴𝑅 remains as a free design variable.
𝑑𝐶𝐿
𝑑𝛼 =𝐶𝐿𝛼=𝐶𝑙𝛼𝐴𝑅
2+4+𝐴𝑅 𝛽
𝜂1+tan(Λ0.5𝐶)2
𝛽2(10)
Another implicit geometric dependency of the neutral point location stems from the downwash gradient
𝜕𝜖
𝜕𝛼
. As
shown in Equation 6 and Equation 7, this parameter depends on the aspect ratio
𝐴𝑅 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
, span
𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑
and surface area
𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
of the forward wing, and the horizontal and vertical distance between the wings (
Δ𝑥
and
Δ𝑧
, respectively). Note
that Equation 9 neglects the impact of the upwash of the rear wing on the front wing. This is deemed an acceptable
simplification as an analysis using lifting line theory showed that the upwash gradient to be an order of magnitude lower
than the downwash gradient [7].
In addition to this, there are dependencies on the vertical wing positions, aspect ratios and cruise lift coefficients
through the drag contributions. Finally, the term
(𝑉𝑟/𝑉)2
is taken as 1, which is the value suggested by [
5
] for a
high-mounted stabiliser. This value was chosen since the vertical distance between the wings is similar as between a
low-mounted wing and a high-mounted stabiliser, while the horizontal distance is even greater.
As for the forward CG limit for pitch controllability, similar geometric dependencies could be identified. Again,
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 /𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
,
𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑
,
𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
,
𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑
, and
𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
are directly included in the equation (Equation 4). However, the only
influence of the aspect ratio is on the drag coefficients of the wing, which is a small effect that makes controllability less
dependent on aspect ratio. In addition to these, the length of the mean aerodynamic chords
¯𝑐𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
and
¯𝑐𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
, as well as
the maximum increase in 𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑 that the elevators can offer. This is discussed in more depth in subsection III.C.
A sensitivity study of the neutral point and controllability limit found that
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 /𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
and
𝐴𝑅 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
are the most
powerful parameters to affect the stability and controllability limits of the aircraft (see [
1
,
2
,
9
]). The relative wing
size strongly affects both stability and controllability, while the front wing aspect ratio mainly impacts stability.
𝐴𝑓
is
especially important since it not only impacts the lift slope of the front wing, but also the downwash which in turn
impacts the rear wing.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 6 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 6 Heat map showing
𝐶𝑚𝛼
as a function of the front wing aspect ratio and the ratio between wing surface
areas. The orange line indicates the limit for static longitudinal stability, while the blue line indicates the limit for
pitch controllability at stall. The blue line denotes the design point of the Wigeon.
Having identified these two key design variables allowed to plot the constraints affecting wing placement and sizing
as contour lines in a 2D plot with
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 /𝑆𝑓 𝑤𝑑
on one axis and
𝐴𝑅 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
on the other. Such a plot can be seen in Figure 6.
Note that the total wing area is kept constant as to not affect the lift of the aircraft in cruise.
The plot shows that a small aspect ratio on the front wing is required for longitudinal stability, implying an increase
in induced drag. Also, since the root chord is limited in order to not interfere with other elements of the aircraft, the
small aspect ratio would require a short wingspan.
The consequent reduction in the space available for rotors on the front wing could mean that rotors would have to be
relocated from the front wing to the back wing, meaning that the front rotors would have to perform at a higher throttle
setting in hover than the rear engines. Reducing the number of engines on the front wing could also have a negative
impact on control redundancy in hover. The outcome of this analysis agrees with the results from [
10
], who found that
reducing the aspect ratio of the front wing in a tandem-wing eVTOL aircraft to 25% of the rear wing could allow it to be
longitudinally stable.
C. Vertical Tail and Control Surface Design
In horizontal flight, there are nine state variables to be controlled [
11
]. As in conventional aircraft, the Wigeon
controls these states using the control surfaces that create rolling, pitching, and yawing moments.
The choice of aerodynamic control surfaces, as opposed to differential thrust and thrust vectoring, is based on the
findings of Chen [
12
], who concluded that conventional aerodynamic surfaces are much more effective for steady level
flight than thrust vectoring.
In addition to this, a vertical tail is designed since it was found that a tandem wing is generally unstable in the lateral
direction (see [1]).
1. Vertical tail and rudder sizing
This section presents the different required steps to size of the vertical tail, in terms of its required surface area,
starting from an initial estimate obtained using a class I method. After sizing the vertical tail, the stability requirements
and finally controllability requirements are derived for a one engine inoperative (OEI) condition. The highest value
obtained from either the stability or controllability requirement is chosen as the final design.
In order to initialise the analysis and sizing, a so-called class I method [
13
] is used. This method assumes a vertical
tail volume coefficient ¯
𝑉𝑣which yields an equation for the tail area 𝑆𝑣being as follows:
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 7 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
𝑆𝑣=¯
𝑉𝑣·𝑆𝑏
𝑙𝑣
(11)
where
𝑙𝑣
is the vertical tail moment arm as
𝑙𝑣=(𝑥𝑣𝑥𝑐𝑔 )
. A value of 0.04 for the volume coefficient is chosen (as
initial estimate) using values found in [
13
]. Furthermore, it is assumed that the vertical tail is placed at the end of the
fuselage. Due to the assumed small size of the vertical tail w.r.t. to the fuselage length,
𝑙𝑓 𝑢𝑠
, this results in initial
estimate for the aerodynamic centre of the vertical tail to be
𝑥𝑣𝑙𝑓 𝑢𝑠
. Additionally, an estimate of the root chord,
𝑐𝑣𝑟
, must be performed from the surface area and taper ratio
𝜆𝑣
. Furthermore,
𝑏𝑣
is the vertical tail span which can
be obtained from
𝑏𝑣=𝐴𝑅𝑣·𝑆𝑣
. The initial value for
𝐴𝑅𝑣
is assumed to be 1.25, chosen using [
13
] and later its
sensitivity to
𝑆𝑣
and
𝑏𝑣
is verified in order to understand the importance of this design parameter. The aspect ratio is
also treated as a design variable in the multi-disciplinary framework [
1
]. Furthermore, another design variable is the TE
(trailing edge) sweep angle,
Λ𝑣𝑇𝐸
which is also maximised or optimised (in order to increase the effective moment arm
𝑙𝑣
and in order to have rudder outside the wake of the rear wing as much as possible). The final design variable is the
taper ratio,
𝜆𝑣
, chosen to be initially 0.40 in order to obtain an approximated elliptical side force distribution. With
these design variables, it is possible to compute the required aerodynamic and geometric properties starting from the
MAC, ¯𝑐𝑣, and the root chord, 𝑐𝑣𝑟using:
¯𝑐𝑣=2/3·𝑐𝑣𝑟·(1+𝜆𝑣+𝜆2
𝑣)
(1+𝜆𝑣)(12) 𝑐𝑣𝑟=2
1+𝜆𝑣·𝑆𝑣
𝑏𝑣
(13)
Having the obtained the initial values, a more accurate estimate of the moment arm,
𝑙𝑣
, can be done by using the
x-and y-positions of the LEMAC of the vertical tail (which are a function of the TE sweep), assuming that the root
chord is entirely on the fuselage and finally that the aerodynamic centre is at quarter-chord of the MAC. The moment
arm becomes:
𝑙𝑣=𝑙𝑓 𝑢𝑠 𝑐𝑣𝑟+𝑋𝐿𝐸 𝑀 𝐴𝐶𝑣+0.25 ·¯𝑐𝑣(14)
where
𝑋𝐿𝐸 𝑀 𝐴𝐶𝑣
is the LEMAC position in the x-direction (from the leading edge of the aerodynamic surface), computed
as follows:
𝑌𝑀 𝐴𝐶𝑣=𝑏𝑣
6·1+2·𝜆𝑣
1+𝜆𝑣
(15) 𝑋𝐿𝐸 𝑀 𝐴𝐶𝑣=𝑌𝑀 𝐴𝐶𝑣·𝑡𝑎𝑛 (Λ𝐿 𝐸𝑣)(16)
It is now possible to present the two different requirements that the vertical tail must satisfy.
Having initialised the vertical tail design, the stability requirement must be specified. In fact, in order to have lateral
static stability it must hold that:
𝐶𝑛𝛽>
0. This stability derivative has multiple components: the wing terms, the
fuselage term and finally the vertical tail component.
First the wing contribution, for unswept wings (at quarter-chord) is derived using [8] and is as follows:
(𝐶𝑛𝛽)𝑤=𝐶2
𝐿·1
4𝜋𝐴𝑅𝑤·𝑆𝑤𝑏𝑤
𝑆𝑏 (17)
where the subscript
𝑤
refers to one wing and
𝐶𝐿
is the lift coefficient at cruise. The second required terms for the
computation of 𝐶𝑛𝛽is the fuselage term estimated using [14] with Equation 18 and Equation 19:
(𝐶𝑛𝛽)𝑓 𝑢𝑠 =2𝜈
𝑆𝑏 (18) 𝜈=𝑙𝑓 𝑢𝑠
0
𝜋
4·𝑤(𝑥)2𝑑𝑥 (19)
where
𝜈
is the effective volume of the fuselage and
𝑤(𝑥)
is the width as a function of the longitudinal position
𝑥
starting
from the nose. This are approximated with an elliptical shape resulting in 𝑤(𝑥)=(𝑤𝑚𝑎 𝑥 /2) · 1𝑥
𝑙𝑓 𝑢𝑠 /22
.
The third term is related to the vertical tail as follows:
(𝐶𝑛𝛽)𝑣=𝐶𝑌𝑣𝛼·1𝑑𝜎
𝑑𝛽 ·𝑉𝑣
𝑉2
·𝑆𝑣𝑙𝑣
𝑆𝑏 (20)
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 8 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
where
(𝐶𝑌𝑣𝛼)𝑣
is the derivative of the side force coefficient
𝐶𝑌
(of the vertical tail) w.r.t
𝛼
. This derivative is basically
negative
𝐶𝐿𝛼
of the vertical tail.
𝜎
is the side wash (assumed to be 0 for simplicity) and
𝑉𝑣
is the velocity of the airflow
at the vertical tail (assumed to be equal to the aircraft airspeed as the flow would be undisturbed due to the height
difference between the wings).
The final equation relating to the stability requirement for 𝑆𝑣can be derived and results in Equation 21.
𝑆𝑣=(𝐶𝑛𝛽− (𝐶𝑛𝛽)𝑓 𝑢𝑠 − (𝐶𝑛𝛽)𝑤 ,𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 +𝑓 𝑤𝑑 )
𝐶𝐿𝑣𝛼·𝑆𝑏
𝑙𝑣
(21)
where
𝐶𝑛𝛽
is taken to be 0.0571 in order to provide a sufficient stability margin as found in [
15
] and to account for the
previously defined assumptions.
For the controllability condition, the vertical tail should provide a sufficient counter-acting yaw moment for an
asymmetric thrust condition.
In order to obtain a reasonable estimate, several design variables must be identified being the maximum rudder
deflection
𝛿𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥
, the span and chord ratio of the rudder and the vertical tail
𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
and
¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣
respectively and the minimum
controllable speed 𝑉𝑀 𝐶 . These are estimated using [16] and can be summarised in Table 2.
Table 2 Lateral design variables.
Design variable Value/Range
𝛿𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 [deg] 25
𝑏𝑟/𝑏𝑣[-] 0.7-1.0
¯𝑐𝑟/¯𝑐𝑣[-] 0.15-0.4
𝑉𝑀𝐶 /𝑉𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 [-] 1.2
For the geometric parameters such as
𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
and
¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣
, a sensitivity analysis towards
𝑆𝑣
is performed in order to verify the
most optimal pair of values for the lowest area.
Additionally, the same is performed for a combination of Λ𝑣𝑇 𝐸 and 𝐴𝑅𝑣.
For the controllability requirement, the vertical tail and rudder must be sized in such a manner that an OEI condition
can be controlled, where the OEI is defined in this section as losing all engines from one side of the aircraft. The created
yaw moment due to an asymmetric thrust condition can be computed using Equation 22 to Equation 24 [15]:
𝑁𝑎=𝑁𝐸+𝑁𝐷(22) 𝑁𝐸=2
𝑛
𝑖
𝑇
𝑛𝐸
𝑦𝑖(23) 𝑁𝐷0.25 ·𝑁𝐸(24)
where
𝑁𝐸
is the sum of the individual asymmetric yaw moments due to an asymmetric thrust per engine
𝑇/𝑛𝐸
, with a
moment arm
𝑦𝑖
and finally
𝑛
being the number of engines on one half-wing.
𝑁𝐷
is the yaw moment due to the drag of
the engine (which for variable pitch propellers is a quarter of 𝑁𝐸[15]) and 𝑛𝐸is the number of propellers.
It is now possible to show the yaw moment equilibrium equation which relates to the lateral trim condition obtained
with Equation 25 and Equation 26 [16]:
𝑁=𝑁0+𝑁𝑎+𝑁𝛿𝑟·𝛿𝑟+𝑁𝛽·𝛽+𝑁𝛿𝑎·𝛿𝑎=0(25) 𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟=𝐶𝐿𝑣𝛼·𝑆𝑣𝑙𝑣
𝑆𝑏 ·𝜏𝑟·𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
(26)
with
𝑁0=
0as the vertical tail has a symmetric airfoil,
𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟
is the yaw control derivative w.r.t rudder deflection and
𝜏𝑟
being the rudder effectiveness which is as follows [16]:
𝜏𝑟=1.129 ·¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣0.4044
0.1772 (27)
Assuming that the aircraft is not slipping (
𝛽=
0) and no aileron deflection is applied (
𝛿𝑎=
0), an equation for
𝑆𝑣
can be obtained. The aforementioned is as follows:
𝑆𝑣=𝑁𝑎
0.5𝜌𝑉2
𝑀𝐶 ·𝐶𝐿𝑣𝛼·𝑙𝑣·𝜏𝑟· (𝑏𝑟/𝑏𝑣) · 𝛿𝑟
(28)
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 9 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Having derived the stability and controllability limits for
𝑆𝑣
with Equation 21 and Equation 28, the limiting case
must be identified and as a result the highest value obtained from both equations is used for the final design.
It is now possible to find the sensitivity of the surface area
𝑆𝑣
and the span
𝑏𝑣
for the set of design variables and in
the same time find an optimal value. First, the Λ𝑣𝑇𝐸 with 𝐴𝑅𝑣pair is selected as can be seen in Figure 7.
(a) Sensitivity of the vertical tail span,
𝑏𝑣
as a function of
Λ𝑣𝑇𝐸
with 𝐴𝑅𝑣.
(b) Sensitivity of the vertical tail span,
𝑆𝑣
as a function of
Λ𝑣𝑇𝐸
with 𝐴𝑅𝑣.
Fig. 7 Sensitivity analysis of both 𝑏𝑣and 𝑆𝑣parameters.
It can be easily seen, that
𝑆𝑣
has a very low sensitivity to the sweep angle, whereas it decreases with increases
𝐴𝑅𝑣
.
The span,
𝑏𝑣
, on the other hand has a localised minimum around
(𝐴𝑅𝑣=
1
.
05
,Λ𝑣𝑇𝐸 =
39
deg)
. It is therefore necessary
to find a compromise between both the surface area and the span, and it must be noted that the larger the span and
sweep, the larger the required structure to support it, which increases the mass. It is hence decided that an
𝐴𝑅𝑣
of 1.4
and a TE sweep of 25
deg
is a good choice when taking into account all the aforementioned. Finally, it is possible to
select the required
𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
and
¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣
in order to match the both the controllability and stability (represented as a black contour
line) requirements and can be seen in Figure 8.
(a) Sensitivity of the vertical tail span,
𝑏𝑣
as a function of
𝑐𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
and ¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣
, for the selected aspect ratio and sweep.
(b) Sensitivity of the vertical tail area, 𝑆𝑣as a function of 𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
and ¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣
, for the selected aspect ratio and sweep.
Fig. 8 Sensitivity analysis of both
𝑆𝑣
and
𝑏𝑣
for the controllability design variables and the stability requirement.
From Figure 8, it can clearly be seen that both variables are sensitive and affected in the same manner by the design
variables. Therefore, to provide the most optimum values in terms of stability and to provide less stress to the vertical
tail, the values are taken to be: 𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
=1.0and ¯𝑐𝑟
¯𝑐𝑣
=0.24.
Finally, following the
𝑆𝑣
estimation it is possible to estimate all geometric properties of the vertical tail and rudder.
These can be visualised in Figure 9 for the specific example.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 10 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 9 Visualisation of the vertical tail and rudder with geometrical properties
𝑏𝑣=
1
.
503 m, root chord
𝑐𝑣𝑟=1.534 m and tip chord 𝑐𝑣𝑡=0.613 m.
2. Elevator sizing
The elevator is an essential control surface for pitch control authority, especially it is vital at low speeds as it is the
limit of controllability. As it is done for previous control surfaces, it is required to assume a range for a set of design
variables in order to obtain the best elevator sizing possible (that can be found in [
17
]). The choice of designing a simple
elevator or an elevon is to be verified by checking what are the required geometric properties for pitch control at the
lowest speed and what would the value of the specific span dimensions have to be computed. For the specific case study,
upon further scrutiny of both the aileron and elevator sizing, the pitching control surface is defined to be an elevon
placed on both the forward and rear wings, working in a similar manner to an aileron but for pitch control. This is
because it was found that high span ratio values are needed for the control surfaces.
It is noted that a certain increase in
𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑
and a decrease in
𝐶𝐿𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
are needed in order to obtain a feasible CG
range (see [
9
]). This ensures not only that the aircraft can be trimmed at stall, but also that the elevators can be utilised
to control the aircraft in all other horizontal flight conditions. The general lift coefficient equation can be seen in
Equation 29. The previously described required increase in lift coefficient, caused by the elevator deflection, can be
identified and re-written in Equation 30.
𝐶𝐿𝑖=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖·𝛼+𝐶𝐿𝛿𝑒𝑖·𝛿𝑒(29) Δ𝐶𝐿𝑖=±𝐶𝐿𝛿𝑒𝑖·𝛿𝑒(30)
where
𝐶𝐿𝛿𝑒𝑖
is the control derivative of one of the lift coefficients w.r.t a deflection input. It can be observed that for the
rear wing, the required change in lift coefficient is negative whereas for the forward a positive change is required to
obtain better pitching up capability.
The control derivative can estimated using Equation 31 [
17
] with an additional derived correction factor to account
for the fuselage width clearance:
𝐶𝐿𝛿𝑒𝑖𝜏𝑒·𝑏𝑒
𝑏𝑖·𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖(31)
where
𝜏𝑒
is the elevator effectiveness which can also be computed using Equation 37, where the ratio to be used is
𝑆𝑒/𝑆𝑖
. It must also be noted that the aircraft’s control derivative
𝐶𝐿𝛿𝑒
is different from the above. However, this aircraft
derivative is not required as the elevator is designed for a specific increase and decrease in the forward and rear lift
coefficient, respectively, and not for the entire aircraft. It can therefore be possible to optimise for the best set of
𝑆𝑒/𝑆𝑖
and
𝑏𝑒/𝑏𝑖
, where a special attention must be placed on the chord ratio as well in order to minimise the impact on the
wing box. As a last note, a clearance 𝑤𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑟 of 0.5 m is taken in order to account for a local fuselage width of 1 m.
Finally, the elevators must be able to trim and allow for a pitching up moment at stall which can be translated to
𝐶𝑚>
0. Using Equation 1, it can be seen that the moment coefficient is a function of both lift coefficients and hence by
extension the elevator deflection
𝛿𝑒
and the respective wing control derivatives. In order to affect the flow over the rear
wing as little as possible, a maximum elevator deflection of 10
deg
is chosen (which is smaller than what can be found in
[
17
]). The sensitivity analysis of the pitching moment coefficient w.r.t
𝑆𝑒/𝑆𝑖
,
¯𝑐𝑒/¯𝑐𝑖
and the elevator span ratio
𝑏𝑒/𝑏𝑖
can now be performed and visualised in Figure 10.
A similar pattern is observed for both the area and chord ratio design variables due to their geometric relationship.
However, it can be noticed that the moment coefficient is slightly more sensitive to the chord ratio (although it has a
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 11 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
(a) Sensitivity of
𝐶𝑚
as a function of area ratio
𝑆𝑒
𝑆𝑖
and
𝑏𝑒
in
percentages of wing span 𝑏𝑖.
(b) Sensitivity of
𝐶𝑚
as a function of
¯𝑐𝑒
¯𝑐𝑖
and
𝑏𝑒
in percentages
of wing span 𝑏𝑖.
Fig. 10 Sensitivity of the pitching moment coefficient w.r.t.
𝑆𝑒/𝑆𝑖
,
¯𝑐𝑒/¯𝑐𝑖
and
𝑏𝑒
for a maximum elevator
deflection of 𝛿𝑒=10 deg.
more restricted design space due to the presence of the wingbox). For the elevon wingspan ratio, a value of
𝑏𝑒
𝑏𝑖
=
0
.
868
is selected due to the fuselage clearance constraint. The outer limit of the elevator is placed at 99% of the wing’s span in
order to ensure good roll control when designing the ailerons. As previously mentioned, the limiting design variable is
the chord ratio which is selected to be
¯𝑐𝑒
¯𝑐𝑖
=
0
.
25. In the same manner as for the rudder, the selected design ratios can be
multiplied by the wing geometric properties in order to obtain the elevator size.
3. Aileron sizing
In order to design and size the ailerons, the roll rate requirement for small aircraft is needed. The aircraft must be able
to roll faster or at the same rate as demanded by regulations. This involves a combination of the airfoil aerodynamics,
wing geometry and finally a control derivative estimation.
As a first step, some design variables must be identified and defined. These are: the aileron-wing surface and span
ratio,
𝑆𝑎/𝑆𝑖
and
𝑏𝑎/𝑏
respectively and the maximum aileron deflection
𝛿𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥
. The aileron span is found by assuming
the inner and outer positions, 𝑏1and 𝑏2respectively, leading to 𝑏𝑎=𝑏2𝑏1as can be seen in Figure 11. The chosen
values and ranges of the geometric parameters are summarised in Table 3 as seen in literature [18].
Fig. 11 Aileron geometry, position w.r.t the wing and
coordinate y used.
Table 3 Aileron design variables.
Design variable Value/Range
𝛿𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 [deg]±30
𝑏2/(𝑏𝑖/2)[-] 0.70-0.95
𝑆𝑎/𝑆𝑖[-] 0.05-0.2
Due to the elevon wingspan and relative position on both wings,
𝑏2=
0
.
99
·𝑏𝑖/
2. The outer position of the
aileron is hence slightly higher than as it can be found in Table 3. A maximum deflection of
𝛿𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 =±
30
deg
is
assumed. Furthermore, a particular attention must be noted on the range of
𝑆𝑎/𝑆𝑖
(which can be seen in Table 3), as for
conventional aircraft the typical range is 0.05-0.1 [
18
]. This difference is taking into account the tandem wing nature of
the eVTOL, hence
𝑆𝑖
can reach values that are less than half the value of the total area
𝑆
. This hence explains the higher
maximum limit set for the surface ratio and the lower limit for the inner limit.
Having defined the necessary geometric properties, the physical problem can be explained. Due to its relatively
small mass, the aircraft must be able to roll 60
deg
in 1.3 s [
19
]. This is further confirmed for V/STOL aircraft in [
11
],
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 12 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
where the requirement is slightly lower. For this the following equilibrium equation for steady roll is used:
L=L𝛽·𝛽+ L𝑝·𝑝𝑏
2𝑉+ L𝛿𝑟·𝛿𝑟+ L𝛿𝑎·𝛿𝑎=0(32)
where
𝑝
is the roll rate and for a pure roll
𝛽=
0and no deflection in rudder is used
𝛿𝑟=
0. The latter with the regulation
requirement yield the following:
𝑝=2𝑉
𝑏·𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎
𝐶𝑙𝑝·𝛿𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≥ ±60 ·𝜋/180
1.3(33)
with 𝑉being the slowest speed at which a controlled roll manoeuvre can be performed which is assumed to be 𝑉𝑀𝐶 .
It is further assumed that the wing is straight, and this assumption is supported by the fact that the sweep at
quarter-chord is 0 and due to that the wing is approximately straight. It is now possible to estimate two required
derivatives,
𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎=𝑑𝐶𝑙
𝑑 𝛿𝑎
and
𝐶𝑙𝑝=𝑑𝐶𝑙
𝑑𝑝𝑏
2𝑉
, obtained using simple strip theory[
14
,
20
]. These can be found using
Equation 34 [18] and Equation 35 [20].
(𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎)𝑖=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖𝜏𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑖
𝑆𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑦2
2+2
3
𝜆𝑖1
𝑏𝑖
𝑦3𝑏1
𝑏2
(34) (𝐶𝑙𝑝)𝑖=(𝐶𝑙𝛼𝑖+𝐶𝑑0𝑖)𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑖
24 ·𝑆𝑖(1+3𝜆𝑖)(35)
where
𝐶𝑙𝛼
and
𝐶𝑑0
are lift curve slope and zero lift drag coefficient of the wing airfoil and
𝑖
refers to either the forward or
rear wing. It must be noted that in order to obtain the aircraft’s
𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎
and
𝐶𝑙𝑝
, a correction factor which accounts for the
different wing sizes has to be implemented. This is due to the definition of the aircraft’s roll moment coefficient
𝐶𝑙
as:
𝐶𝑙=L𝑓 𝑤𝑑 + L𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
0.5𝜌𝑉2·𝑆𝑏
=𝐶𝑙𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆𝑏 +𝐶𝑙𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 ·𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑏𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑏 𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
(36)
where
𝑏
is the span of the entire aircraft. Finally,
𝜏𝑎
is the aileron effectiveness that can be estimated using Equation 37
[18].
𝜏𝑎=6.624 ·𝑆𝑎
𝑆𝑖4
+12.07 ·𝑆𝑎
𝑆𝑖3
8.292 ·𝑆𝑎
𝑆𝑖2
+3.295 ·𝑆𝑎
𝑆𝑖+0.004942 (37)
With all the aforementioned, it is now possible to proceed with the sizing procedure. This must ensure that
Equation 33 is satisfied and with an assumed
𝑏2
value, optimal values for
𝑆𝑎/𝑆𝑖
and
𝑏1
can be obtained through a
sensitivity analysis. Additionally, the aileron is constrained within the geometry of the elevon and this is evaluated as
follows: 𝑆𝑎
𝑆𝑖(𝑏1)=1
𝑆𝑖
𝑐𝑎𝑡+𝑐𝑎𝑟(𝑏1)
2·2·𝑏𝑎(𝑏1)(38)
with 𝑐𝑎𝑡and 𝑐𝑎𝑟being the tip and root chords respectively. All the aforementioned can be visualised with Figure 12.
From Figure 12, it can be seen that both variables affect the roll rate of the aircraft in a similar manner. The
intersection of the geometric constraint from Equation 38 and the roll requirement is the most optimum design for the
aileron. This is found to be: 𝑆𝑎
𝑆𝑖
=0.115 and 𝑏1=0.4703 ·𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑 /2.
The final elevon design, for the specific example, can be be visualised (for the forward wing) in Figure 13.
D. Stability and Control Derivatives
In the following, a novel analytical model is derived for the tandem wing aircraft in order to estimate during the
preliminary design phase the stability derivatives of the aerodynamic forces and moments
𝑋
(forward force),
𝑍
(down
force) and
𝑀
(pitch moment) for longitudinal motions and
𝑌
(side force),
L
(roll moment) and
𝑁
(yaw moment) for
lateral motion. The state variables for longitudinal motion are: the dimensionless velocity perturbation
ˆ𝑢
, the angle of
attack
𝛼
, the pitch angle
𝜃
, and the dimensionless pitch rate
𝑞¯𝑐
𝑉0
. In the case of lateral motion the state variables are:
the side-slip angle
𝛽
, the bank angle
𝜙
, the dimensionless roll and yaw rates
𝑝𝑏
2𝑉0
and
𝑟 𝑏
2𝑉0
respectively. This method
combines both known semi-empirical methods (that are adapted to account for a two-winged aircraft) and new physical
derivations. The preliminary model is verified using stability derivatives obtained for other aircraft from [11].
1. Longitudinal aerodynamic forces
The corresponding longitudinal aerodynamic force coefficients 𝐶𝑋and 𝐶𝑍are as follows:
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 13 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 12 Sensitivity analysis of the roll rate,
𝑝
, as a func-
tion of the surface ratio
𝑆𝑎/𝑆𝑖
and the inner dimension
𝑏1.
Fig. 13 Elevon geometry visualisation for the forward
wing.
𝐶𝑋=𝐶𝐿𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼) − 𝐶𝐷𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝛼) + 𝐶𝑇(39) 𝐶𝑍=𝐶𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝛼) − 𝐶𝐷𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼) + 𝐶𝑇𝑖𝑇(40)
with
𝛼
being the angle of attack,
𝐶𝑇
being the thrust coefficient defined previously and
𝑖𝑇
being the effective incidence
angle of the propeller total thrust force w.r.t to the stability axis system.
When estimating the dynamic stability behaviour of the aircraft, the main focus is on small disturbances that deviate
the aircraft from its trim (equilibrium) condition. Due to the aforementioned, the small angle approximation can be used
for the angle of attack, resulting in:
𝐶𝑋𝐶𝐿𝛼𝐶𝐷+𝐶𝑇(41) 𝐶𝑍≈ −𝐶𝐿𝐶𝐷𝛼(42)
The aerodynamic pitching moment coefficient, 𝐶𝑚, has already been derived and can be found in Equation 1.
2. Velocity stability derivatives
The first stability derivatives to be discussed in this section are the derivatives w.r.t
ˆ𝑢=Δ𝑉
𝑉0
, the change in initial
velocity normalised by the initial velocity
𝑉0
(in trim condition). The derivatives are hence
𝐶𝑋𝑢
,
𝐶𝑍𝑢
and
𝐶𝑚𝑢
. Using
Equation 41, Equation 42 and Equation 1 and the transformation 𝑑
𝑑ˆ𝑢=𝑀𝑑
𝑑𝑀 , the equations are as follows:
𝐶𝑋𝑢=𝑀2
0
1𝑀2
0
𝐶𝐿,0𝛼03𝐶𝐷,03𝐶𝐿 ,0𝑡𝑎𝑛 (𝛾0) − 𝑀0𝐶𝐷𝑀(43)
𝐶𝑍𝑢=𝑀2
0
1𝑀2
0
𝐶𝐿,0𝑀0𝐶𝐷𝑀𝛼0(44)
𝐶𝑚𝑢=𝑀0·"𝐶𝐿𝑀𝑓 𝑤𝑑 · (𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 ) · 𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐𝐶𝐿𝑀𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 · (𝑥𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑔 ) · 𝑆𝑟 𝑒 𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐𝑉𝑟
𝑉2#+
𝐶𝑇𝑢𝑓𝑤 𝑑
𝑧𝑐𝑔 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆¯𝑐𝐶𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑧𝑐𝑔𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆¯𝑐𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
(45)
where the subscript 0relates to the initial equilibrium condition being the cruise condition,
𝑀0
is the initial mach
number,
𝛾0
is the initial flight path angle and finally
𝐶𝐿𝑖𝑀
and
𝐶𝐷𝑀
are the lift and drag derivatives w.r.t mach number
which account for compressibility effects. The latter drag term terms can be approximated to 0 compared to the lift
term as the aircraft will fly in the subsonic incompressible regime. This also is already done for Equation 45 (which is
derived by differentiating Equation 1 w.r.t
ˆ𝑢
), where the drag terms are neglected. The aforementioned
𝐶𝐿𝑀
derivative
and 𝐶𝑇𝑢were found in [14], where for the latter the constant power case is taken.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 14 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 14 Simplified representation of an idealised pull-up manoeuvre with velocity
𝑉
, radius
𝑅
and pitch rate
𝑞
for a generic aircraft.
3. Angle of attack stability derivatives
The derivatives can be found in Equation 46 and Equation 47.
𝐶𝑋𝛼=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝛼0+𝐶𝐿,0𝐶𝐷𝛼+𝐶𝑇𝛼(46) 𝐶𝑍𝛼=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝐶𝐷𝛼𝛼0𝐶𝐷,0(47)
where it is assumed that thrust is not a function of the angle of attack leading to
𝐶𝑇𝛼=
0. For
𝐶𝑚𝛼
, the equation is
already derived and can be found in Equation 5.
4. Pitch rate stability derivatives
A general estimate for the change in geometric angle of attack must be first done in order to estimate the required
stability derivatives
𝐶𝑍𝑞
and
𝐶𝑚𝑞
whose effects are dominant during a pull-up manoeuvre. It is also essential to mention
that the forward force term 𝐶𝑋𝑞is usually neglected as seen in both [11, 14], leading to 𝐶𝑋𝑞0.
For an idealised pull-up manoeuvre several aspects are assumed. First, the velocity
𝑉
and the load factor
𝑛
is
assumed to be constant. Secondly, it is assumed that the aircraft motion follows a perfect circle with a radius
𝑅
, assumed
to be significantly larger than the size of the aircraft. The general situation can be portrayed in Figure 14.
The change in geometric angle of attack can be estimated by Equation 48, which again assumes that
𝑅
is significantly
larger than the overall length of the aircraft and uses the small angle approximation. Additionally, the radius
𝑅
can be
expressed as a function of the pitch rate
𝑞
and velocity
𝑉
with
𝑅=𝑉/𝑞
. From the latter, Equation 48 can be rewritten
into Equation 49.
Δ𝛼𝑠𝑖𝑛(Δ𝛼)=𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑔
𝑅(48)
Δ𝛼=(𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑔 )
¯𝑐·𝑞¯𝑐
𝑉0
(49)
Having derived the general equation for the change in angle of attack, it is now possible to estimate the stability
derivatives of the down normal force and pitching moment defined as 𝐶𝑍𝑞and 𝐶𝑚𝑞respectively.
For the latter, the approximation
𝐶𝑍≈ −𝐶𝐿
and the change in lift due to the pitch rate
𝑞
can be used as seen in
Equation 50.
Δ𝐶𝐿=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·(𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 )
¯𝑐·𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆·𝑞¯𝑐
𝑉0+𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 ·𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 (𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑔 )
𝑆¯𝑐𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
·𝑞¯𝑐
𝑉0
(50)
The derivative can hence be identified which leads to:
𝐶𝑍𝑞𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·(𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 )
¯𝑐·𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑
𝑆𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 ·(𝑥𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑔 )
¯𝑐·𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
(51)
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 15 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
From the latter, the moment coefficient derivative is as follows:
𝐶𝑚𝑞≈ − 𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑑 ·𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 (𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤𝑑 )2
𝑆¯𝑐2+𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 ·𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 (𝑥𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑔 )2
𝑆¯𝑐2𝑉𝑟
𝑉2!(52)
5. Angle of attack rate stability derivatives
These stability derivatives are due to the time difference associated to the front wing downwash which affects the
rear wing. The latter alters the lift force on the rear wing and hence also the pitching moment. These derivatives are
defined with the dimensionless change of angle of attack
¤𝛼¯𝑐
𝑉0
. The effect on the vehicle drag can be neglected [
14
],
which leads to 𝐶𝑋¤𝛼0.
In order to find an analytical estimate of the rest of the derivatives, first the time difference that the flow takes
between both wings can be approximated in Equation 53 and the downwash can hence be linearised and computed with
Equation 54 [14].
Δ𝑡(𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑎𝑐 𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 )
𝑉0
=𝑙𝑤
𝑉0
(53) 𝜖(𝑡) ≈ 𝜖0+𝑑𝜖
𝑑𝛼 · (𝛼− ¤𝛼Δ𝑡)(54)
The additional lag term can be identified and accounted for with the aid of the product rule
𝑑 𝛼
𝑑¤𝛼¯𝑐/𝑉0
=𝑑 𝜖
𝑑 𝛼
𝑙𝑤
¯𝑐
which
leads to the following:
𝐶𝑍¤𝛼=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 ·𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆·𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
·𝑑𝜖
𝑑𝛼
𝑙𝑤
¯𝑐(55)
𝐶𝑚¤𝛼=𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 ·𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑆·𝑉𝑟
𝑉2
·𝑑𝜖
𝑑𝛼
𝑙𝑤(𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑔 )
¯𝑐2(56)
6. Side-slip stability derivatives
For the lateral motion, the derivatives of the side force
𝑌
, yaw moment
𝑁
and roll moment
L
must be estimated for
a small disturbance in side-slip angle 𝛽.
First, the dominant term to 𝐶𝑌𝛽is from the vertical tail and can be estimated as follows:
𝐶𝑌𝛽≈ −𝐶𝑌𝑣𝛼·1𝑑𝜎
𝑑𝛽 ·𝑉𝑣
𝑉2
·𝑆𝑣
𝑆(57)
with the different lateral parameters being already defined in subsubsection III.C.1. The yaw moment derivative,
𝐶𝑛𝛽
, is
also presented in the same section. The last stability derivative,
𝐶𝑙𝛽
has multiple terms that depend on lift distribution,
vertical tail position and wing characteristics (dihedral, quarter-chord sweep and lift curve slope) and position. These
are obtained by combining a semi-empirical method from [
8
] for the wing contribution (corrected by a required factor,
already derived in the previous section) and an approximate analytical estimate due to the vertical tail. The result is:
𝐶𝑙𝛽=
2
𝑤=1"𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑤Γ𝑤
4·2/31+2𝜆𝑤
1+𝜆𝑤1.2𝐴𝑅𝑤𝑍𝑤 𝑓 (𝑙𝑓 𝑢 𝑠 +𝑤𝑓 𝑢𝑠 )
𝑏2
𝑤#𝑆𝑤𝑏𝑤
𝑆𝑏 𝑉𝑤
𝑉2
+𝐶𝑌𝛽𝑣·𝑧𝑣
𝑏(58)
where the first term is the component for both wings and accounts for the wing and wing-fuselage interference, obtained
from [
8
]. Due to the dual-wing nature of the aircraft, this interference is averaged per wing with the term
𝑆𝑤𝑏𝑤
𝑆𝑏
.
Γ𝑤
is
the dihedral angle of the wing and
𝑍𝑤 𝑓
is the distance above the centre line of the wing. Indeed, a high wing has a
negative contribution to the derivative, which hence is stabilising. The final component is due to the vertical moment
arm,
𝑧𝑣
, from the aerodynamic centre of the vertical tail to the CG of the aircraft. The latter assumes a small initial
angle of attack, 𝛼0.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 16 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
7. Roll rate stability derivatives
The dimensionless roll rate
𝑝𝑏
2𝑉0
stability derivatives are
𝐶𝑌𝑝
,
𝐶𝑙𝑝
and
𝐶𝑛𝑝
. In order to understand why all the
lateral aerodynamic forces and moments change due to a roll rate, it can be understood by a change in the geometric
angle of attack (as it is seen for the pitch rate). This change in angle of attack for the vertical tail can be estimated as
Δ𝛼𝑣𝑝𝑧
𝑉0
=𝑧
𝑏·𝑝𝑏
2𝑉0and for the wing it is Δ𝛼=2𝑦
𝑏·𝑝𝑏
2𝑉0.
First, for the side force derivative the dominant term is due to the vertical tail. Due to the 0.4 vertical tail taper ratio,
the side force distribution can be approximated to be elliptical on the vertical tail. Hence, using [
14
], the equation is as
follows:
𝐶𝑌𝑝≈ (𝐶𝑌𝑝)𝑣=8
3𝜋𝑉𝑣
𝑉2
·𝑏𝑣𝑆𝑣
𝑏𝑆 ·𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑣(59)
The second derivative is
𝐶𝑙𝑝
and it is due to a span-wise change in the sectional lift distribution. It has already been
estimated previously when sizing the aileron (see subsubsection III.C.3).
Finally, the yaw moment also changes with the roll rate and can be estimated with:
𝐶𝑛𝑝≈ −𝑙𝑣
𝑏· (𝐶𝑌𝑝)𝑣1
8 𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑, 0
𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆𝑏 +𝐶𝐿𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 ,0
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑏 𝑉𝑟
𝑉2!(60)
where the first contribution is due to the vertical tail and the second one is due to the wings. Due to the angle of attack
change, the sectional drag varies along the wing as
Δ𝐶𝑑=−(𝐶𝑙 ,0+𝐶𝑑𝛼) · Δ𝛼≈ −𝐶𝑙,0𝑝 𝑦
𝑏
𝑝𝑏
2𝑉0
. Hence this difference in
the
𝑋
force along the wing, when integrated over the whole span results in an induced yaw moment (using simple strip
theory). An approximation of the integral associated to the tandem wing correction can be seen as the second term of
Equation 60.
8. Yaw rate stability derivatives
The last set of stability derivatives are due to a yaw rate
𝑟 𝑏
2𝑉0
, and are the following:
𝐶𝑌𝑟
,
𝐶𝑙𝑟
and
𝐶𝑛𝑟
. In the same
manner as for a pitch rate, a yaw rate induces a change in the geometric angle of attack for all the aircraft’s lifting
surfaces. This change in angle of attack, is Δ𝛼𝑟=(𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑔)𝑟
𝑉0.
With the aforementioned explained, it is now possible to find analytical equations for the three stability derivatives.
In a similar manner than for the roll rate derivative,
𝐶𝑌𝑟
represents the change in side force due to an induced change in
angle of attack, and its main contribution is due to the vertical tail. This can be written as:
𝐶𝑌𝑟=2·𝐶𝑌𝑣𝛼·𝑆𝑣𝑙𝑣
𝑆𝑏 ·𝑉𝑣
𝑉2
(61)
The roll moment derivative follows from the previous equations and can be written as follows:
𝐶𝑙𝑟=𝑧𝑣
𝑏·𝐶𝑌𝑟+1
4· 𝐶𝐿𝑓 𝑤𝑑, 0
𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆𝑏 +𝐶𝐿𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 ,0
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑏 𝑉𝑟
𝑉2!(62)
where the first term is due to the vertical tail (assuming a small initial angle of attack) and the second term is related to
the induced change in lift due to a yaw rate (equivalent to a change in angle of attack) which consequently creates a roll
moment. The latter equation is an approximation of the integral from simple strip theory by assuming an elliptical
distribution of lift over the wing.
The final stability derivative can be estimated using:
𝐶𝑛𝑟=𝑙𝑣
𝑏·𝐶𝑌𝑟1
4· 𝐶𝐷𝑓 𝑤𝑑, 0
𝑆𝑓 𝑤 𝑑 𝑏𝑓 𝑤𝑑
𝑆𝑏 +𝐶𝐷𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 ,0
𝑆𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟
𝑆𝑏 𝑉𝑟
𝑉2!(63)
where a similar pattern emerges with the first term being due to the vertical tail and the second being an approximation
using simple strip theory of the wing contributions.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 17 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Table 4 Definitions and derived equations of the control derivatives.
Control Derivative Equation
𝐶𝑋𝛿𝑒=𝑑𝐶𝑋
𝑑 𝛿𝑒𝐶𝑋𝛿𝑒=0[11]
𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒=𝑑𝐶𝑍
𝑑 𝛿𝑒𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒=Í2
𝑖=1(−1)𝑖𝜏𝑒·𝑆𝑖
𝑆
𝑏𝑒
𝑏𝑖·𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖·𝑉𝑖
𝑉2
𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒=𝑑𝐶𝑚
𝑑 𝛿𝑒𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒=Í2
𝑖=1𝜏𝑒·𝑆𝑖
𝑆
𝑏𝑒
𝑏𝑖·𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖·|𝑥𝑐𝑔𝑥𝑎 𝑐𝑖|
¯𝑐
𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑎=𝑑𝐶𝑌
𝑑 𝛿𝑎𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑎=0[11]
𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎=𝑑𝐶𝑙
𝑑 𝛿𝑎𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎=Í2
𝑖=1𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑖𝜏𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑖
𝑆𝑖𝑏𝑖·h𝑦2
2+2
3
𝜆𝑖1
𝑏𝑖𝑦3i𝑏1
𝑏2
𝑆𝑖𝑏𝑖
𝑆𝑏 𝑉𝑖
𝑉2
𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑎=𝑑𝐶𝑛
𝑑 𝛿𝑎𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑎=0.2·𝐶𝐿, 0·𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎[8]
𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑟=𝑑𝐶𝑌
𝑑 𝛿𝑟𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑟=𝐶𝐿𝑣𝛼·𝑆𝑣
𝑆·𝜏𝑟·𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑟=𝑑𝐶𝑙
𝑑 𝛿𝑟𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑟=𝑧𝑣
𝑏·𝐶𝐿𝑣𝛼·𝑆𝑣
𝑆·𝜏𝑟·𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣
𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟=𝑑𝐶𝑛
𝑑 𝛿𝑟𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟=𝐶𝐿𝑣𝛼·𝑆𝑣𝑙𝑣
𝑆𝑏 ·𝜏𝑟·𝑏𝑟
𝑏𝑣[16]
9. Control derivatives
Having designed the aerodynamic control surfaces for cruise, the aircraft’s control properties are described by the
aid of control derivatives. These are the changes in the aerodynamic loadings due to deflections in elevator
𝛿𝑒
(for
longitudinal control), aileron 𝛿𝑎and rudder 𝛿𝑟(for lateral and directional control). These are summarised in Table 4.
A number of observations can be noted in the expressions of the control derivatives. First, the
𝑋
and
𝑌
control
derivatives to elevator and aileron deflection, respectively, are zero. This is approximation found in literature and can
be safely assumed as a preliminary estimate. The second concept which is recurrent in the expression of the control
derivatives is 𝜏which refers to the control surface effectiveness and is already defined previously. This term allows to
see how effective the aerodynamic control surface (for a change in deflection) are when translated to a local increase in
lift (or side-force). Thirdly, it must be understood that the elevator and aileron are placed on both wings of the aircraft
(analogous to an aircraft with both a canard and a tail for the elevator), leading to the summing nature of the elevator
control derivative derived from Equation 31 and roll control derivative equations. Finally, for
𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎
, the equation is
derived and corrected with a combined method using strip theory [20] and [18], as explained in subsubsection III.C.3.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 18 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
10. Results and specific consideration for lateral open-loop stability
The stability and control derivatives obtained in this section are summarised in Table 5.
Table 5 Summarised stability and control derivatives for both longitudinal and lateral motion for clean cruise
configuration.
Longitudinal Force Derivatives Normal Force DerivativesPitch Moment Derivatives
𝐶𝑋𝑢=-0.16374 𝐶𝑍𝑢=0.024899 𝐶𝑚𝑢=0.0061871
𝐶𝑋𝛼=0.2487 𝐶𝑍𝛼=3.6501 𝐶𝑚𝛼=0.1320
𝐶𝑋¤𝛼=0𝐶𝑍¤𝛼=3.6320 𝐶𝑚¤𝛼=10.0364
𝐶𝑋𝑞=0𝐶𝑍𝑞=2.4294 𝐶𝑚𝑞=22.9669
𝐶𝑋𝛿𝑒=0𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒=0𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒=3.8147
Lateral Force Derivatives Roll Moment Derivatives Yaw Moment Derivatives
𝐶𝑌𝛽=0.1443 𝐶𝑙𝛽=0.05192 𝐶𝑛𝛽=0.05404
𝐶𝑌¤
𝛽=0𝐶𝑛¤
𝛽=0
𝐶𝑌𝑝=0.02243 𝐶𝑙𝑝=0.7462 𝐶𝑛𝑝=0.02082
𝐶𝑌𝑟=0.1469 𝐶𝑙𝑟=0.1585 𝐶𝑛𝑟=0.08167
𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑎=0𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎=0.09817 𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑎=0.01013
𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑟=0.8693 𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑟=0.1746 𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟=0.4423
For lateral motions, the stability derivatives
𝐶𝑛𝛽
and
𝐶𝑙𝛽
define the lateral stability behaviour in terms of Dutch Roll
convergence and spiral stability. The spiral stability limit is determined by the equation:
𝐸=𝐶𝐿,0· (𝐶𝑙𝛽·𝐶𝑛𝑟𝐶𝑛𝛽·𝐶𝑙𝑟)=0(64)
For Dutch Roll stability is determined by the Routh’s Discriminant which should be positive:
𝑅(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽)=𝐵·𝐶(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽) · 𝐷(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽) − 𝐴· (𝐷(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽))2𝐵2·𝐸(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽)>0(65)
where the relations for 𝐴,𝐵,𝐷(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽)and 𝐸(𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽)can be found in [11].
Both can now be plotted in the (−𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽)plane and can be seen in Figure 15.
Fig. 15 Dutch roll and spiral stability limits plotted in the (
𝐶𝑙𝛽, 𝐶𝑛𝛽
) plane. The aircraft is represented by a dot
in the plane with its initial properties, and different changes to the dihedral lead to different positions in the space.
From Figure 15, it can be seen that the specific eVTOL has both a divergent Dutch Roll and an unstable spiral.
Usually, an unstable spiral can easily be dealt with by the pilot as it is a very slow motion. Dutch Roll, however, should
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 19 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
be stable as it can be detrimental to passenger comfort. To address the latter, the dihedral of the aircraft was changed, as
it was previously explained that
𝐶𝑙𝛽
is a function of the dihedral angle for both wings (see Equation 58). It was observed
that if the dihedrals are set to
Γ𝑓 𝑤𝑑 =
0
.
5
deg
and
Γ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 =
4
.
0
deg
, the aircraft has a convergent Dutch Roll (with a
sufficient margin to account for assumptions). The smaller forward dihedral is chosen in order to minimise the risk of
the forward wing touching ground during hover or vertical flight, whereas the rear wing dihedral was limited to -4.0
deg
so that it does not affect the propellers efficacy and aforementioned computations for yaw control.
E. Simulation of Open-Loop Dynamics
The non-dimensional and linearised equations of motion of an aircraft for both symmetric and asymmetric motions
have been derived in [
11
]. A brief overview of the derivation process applied to obtain those equations is provided
in this section. The equations of motion expressed in matrix form are transformed in a state-space form in order to
simulate the aircraft responses to specific disturbances and control inputs. Those equations of motion were linearised
for a steady, straight, symmetric flight in the stability reference frame. This is valid for small disturbances from an
initial equilibrium condition of steady, straight, symmetric flight (i.e. being the reference condition). Since the aircraft
motion studied in this report was described by a set of linear equations of motion, the stability of a specified equilibrium
condition is independent of the input or disturbance.
For the equations of motion the stability reference frame is adopted, where the x-axis lies in the symmetry plane and
its direction is situated along the longitudinal component of the velocity of the centre of gravity. The z-axis also lies in
the symmetry plane and points downwards perpendicular to the x-axis. The y-axis points out of the x-z plane as to
complete the right-handed coordinate system.
The equations of motion can be rewritten into the following form:
C1¤
®𝑥+C2®𝑥+C3®𝑢=®
0(66)
where C
1
,C
2
and C
3
are stability matrices,
®𝑥
is the state vector containing the required responses and
®𝑢
is the input
vector. First, the required matrices are derived for the symmetric case, resulting in:
C1=
2𝜇𝑐·¯𝑐/𝑉00 0 0
0(𝐶𝑍¤𝛼2𝜇𝑐) · ¯𝑐/𝑉00 0
0 0 ¯𝑐/𝑉00
0𝐶𝑚¤𝛼·¯𝑐/𝑉002𝜇𝑐·𝐾𝑦 𝑦 2·¯𝑐/𝑉0
(67)
C2=
𝐶𝑋𝑢𝐶𝑋𝛼𝐶𝑍0𝐶𝑋𝑞
𝐶𝑍𝑢𝐶𝑍𝛼𝐶𝑋0(𝐶𝑍𝑞+2𝜇𝑐)
0 0 0 1
𝐶𝑚𝑢𝐶𝑚𝛼0𝐶𝑚𝑞
(68) C3=
𝐶𝑋𝛿𝑒
𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒
0
𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒
(69)
where in the symmetric case, the state vector, ®𝑥=[ˆ𝑢 𝛼 𝜃 𝑞 ¯𝑐/𝑉0]𝑇and ®𝑢is equal to the elevator deflection 𝛿𝑒.
Second, the same procedure is performed for the asymmetric case resulting in the following:
C1=
(𝐶𝑌¤
𝛽2𝜇𝑏) · 𝑏/𝑉00 0 0
01
2·𝑏/𝑉00 0
0 0 4𝜇𝑏𝐾2
𝑥𝑥 ·𝑏/𝑉04𝜇𝑏·𝐾𝑥𝑧 ·𝑏/𝑉0
𝐶𝑛¤
𝛽·𝑏/𝑉00 4𝜇𝑏·𝐾𝑥𝑧 ·𝑏/𝑉04𝜇𝑏𝐾2
𝑧𝑧 ·𝑏/𝑉0
(70)
C2=
𝐶𝑌𝛽𝐶𝐿,0𝐶𝑌𝑝(𝐶𝑌𝑟4𝜇𝑏)
0 0 1 0
𝐶𝑙𝛽0𝐶𝑙𝑝𝐶𝑙𝑟
𝐶𝑛𝛽0𝐶𝑛𝑝𝐶𝑛𝑟
(71) C3=
𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑎𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑟
0 0
𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑟
𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑎𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟
(72)
where for the asymmetric case
®𝑥=
[
𝛽 𝜙 𝑝𝑏/(
2
𝑉0)𝑟𝑏/(
2
𝑉0)
]
𝑇
and
®𝑢=[𝛿𝑎𝛿𝑟]𝑇
, where
𝛿𝑎
and
𝛿𝑟
are functions of time
or are input to the model as arrays.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 20 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
The final step requires transforming the matrices C
1
,C
2
and C
3
into the state-space matrices A,B,Cand Din the
following:
¤
®𝑥=A®𝑥+B®𝑢&®𝑦=C®𝑥+D®𝑢(73)
where
®𝑦
is the output vector which is chosen to be equal to
®𝑥
, resulting in Cbeing the identity matrix and Dbeing a
matrix containing only zeroes.
The computation of Aand Bis implemented using Equation 74.
A=C11C2&B=C11C3(74)
The latter results in A𝑠for the symmetric case and A𝑎for the asymmetric case.
It can be seen that a set of additional inputs are required. These inputs are the aircraft’s non-dimensional inertia are
as follows:
𝐾2
𝑥𝑥 =𝐼𝑥𝑥
𝑚𝑏2
,
𝐾2
𝑦𝑦 =𝐼𝑦 𝑦
𝑚¯𝑐2
,
𝐾2
𝑧𝑧 =𝐼𝑧 𝑧
𝑚𝑏2
and
𝐾𝑥𝑧 =𝐼𝑥 𝑧
𝑚𝑏2
. The final aerodynamic inputs to the state-space system
are 𝐶𝐿,0,𝐶𝑋0and 𝐶𝑍0computed as follows:
𝐶𝑋0=𝑊 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝜃0)
1/2𝜌𝑉2
0𝑆(75) 𝐶𝑍0=𝑊𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃0)
1/2𝜌𝑉2
0𝑆(76)
which require the weight
𝑊
, the airspeed
𝑉0
, the air density
𝜌
and finally
𝜃0
which is the initial pitch angle. Finally, the
non-dimensional mass 𝜇𝑐and 𝜇𝑏must be computed using:
𝜇𝑐=𝑊
𝑔𝜌𝑆 ¯𝑐(77) 𝜇𝑏=𝑊
𝑔𝜌𝑆 𝑏 (78)
Using the stability and control derivatives given in Table 5, the values for the state-space matrices can be computed.
Based on this, the poles and zeroes of both the symmetric and asymmetric state-space system are found. They are
displayed in Figure 16.
In the symmetric system, all poles have negative real parts, meaning that they are open-loop stable. There is
one periodic eigenmode (pair of complex poles) and two aperiodic eigenmodes (real poles). This is in contrast to
conventional aircraft, which have two periodic symmetric eigenmodes. In the asymmetric system, there is again one
periodic eigenmode and two aperiodic modes. This is the same as for conventional aircraft, where the Dutch roll, the
aperiodic roll and spiral modes are observed. The spiral mode is unstable for the Wigeon (as for many conventional
aircraft), but the other eigenmodes are stable.
This behaviour is favourable in the sense that the aircraft is stable in all modes except the spiral, which can be
deemed acceptable due to it being very slow. However, while stability is an essential criterion for controlling an aircraft,
it is not the only one. As Figure 17 shows, a small step input to the elevator (a typical input given by a pilot to change
the pitch angle) results in a very large change in
𝑉
and
𝜃
. Furthermore, the response is very slow to settle on its final
value, with a large overshoot in all state variables. This needs to be addressed with a closed-loop fly-by-wire system.
Figure 18 shows the response of the asymmetric states to a pulse-shaped rudder input. The Dutch Roll mode causes
high-frequency oscillations in all states, while the unstable spiral mode causes a slow divergence that is especially
visible in the roll angle and yaw rate. Since the Dutch roll is very unpleasant for the occupants of an aircraft and can
cause nausea, it is essential that the oscillations are reduced.
Finally, Figure 19 shows the response of the aircraft states to a pulse-shaped aileron input. The responses are
qualitatively similar as for the rudder, except for an initial peak in
𝑝
, which is the primary function of the aileron.
Furthermore, the magnitude of the response is smaller.
It has therefore been established that a controller is required to achieve good handling qualities of the aircraft in
cruise. It needs to decrease the response time and overshoot for the elevator response, reduce the oscillations of the
Dutch roll and potentially eliminate the instability due to the spiral mode.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 21 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 16 Map of the open-loop poles and zeroes of
the aircraft in cruise. Crosses indicate poles, circles
indicate zeroes.
Fig. 17 Open-loop response of the airspeed
𝑉
, the
angle of attack
𝛼
, the pitch angle
𝜃
, and the pitch
rate 𝑞to a step elevator input of -0.005 rad.
Fig. 18 Open-loop response of the sideslip angle
𝛽,
the roll angle
𝜙
, the roll rate
𝑝
, and the yaw rate
𝑟
to a pulse rudder input of 0.025 rad (for 1 second).
Fig. 19 Open-loop response of the sideslip angle
𝛽
, the roll angle
𝜙
, the roll rate
𝑝
, and the yaw rate
𝑟
to a pulse rudder input of 0.025 rad (for 1 second).
F. Controller Design
In this section, the design of a closed-loop controller for the Wigeon is described. The purpose of this controller
is to improve on the open-loop dynamics of the eVTOL in terms of stability and handling quality. Since the Wigeon
spends most of its mission time in cruise, the present study focuses on a controller to make the aircraft easy to fly in
cruise. The design of controllers for VTOL operation and the transition phase are beyond the scope of this preliminary
design method.
1. Control allocation
In order to introduce the controller design, it is essential to qualitatively mention the required control allocation.
It is important to know what the pilot commands are and how these commands can be translated to deflections of the
aerodynamic surfaces or varying angular speed of the propellers. For cruise, a control stick for pitch, a side stick for roll
and pedals for yaw are connected to a flight control system that directly controls the deflections of the control surfaces
(through the use of actuators) and corrects accordingly for any instabilities. The pilot can therefore set a certain attitude
angle for pitch and a target heading angle for yaw control which automatically sets a roll rate for roll control when a
certain turn manoeuvre must be performed, where for the roll rate a certain maximum bank angle is allowed within the
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 22 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
flight envelope. Finally, to control the aircraft during hover, a collective lever will be used by the pilot which modulates
the speed of the propellers
. Additionally, pedals can be used by the pilot to control the rudder, as in for cruise, and
during ground operations it can be used as differential braking.
2. Controller architecture and closed-loop dynamics
A high-level overview of the controller architecture (created in Simulink) can be seen in Figure 20. While the pitch
controller only consists of one feedback loop with a PI (proportional integral) controller, the lateral controller is more
sophisticated. It is inspired by a lecture by How [21] on a controller for coordinated turns.
Fig. 20 Architecture of the controller for cruise.
In order to improve the Wigeon’s longitudinal dynamics a feedback loop from the pitch angle
𝜃
is used. The pilot
sets a target pitch angle
𝜃𝑡 𝑎𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡
, which is compared to the current pitch angle (measured by an inertial measurement
unit) and then fed through a PI controller. The dynamics of the elevators are modelled using the transfer function
1
0.15𝑠+1
,
which is the transfer function proposed by [
21
] for the aileron. Modelling the elevator as a transfer function takes into
account that its response speed is limited and occurs with a delay.
After tuning the controller gains with Simulink’s PID tuner app, the resulting gain and phase margins are 22.3 dB
and 147 degrees, as seen in Figure 21. The step responses of the longitudinal states to a step input to
𝜃𝑡 𝑎𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡
is shown in
Figure 22. It can be seen that the aircraft is not only stable, but also responds quickly with minimal overshoot.
Fig. 21 Bode plot of the closed-loop response of
𝜃
to
𝜃𝑡 𝑎𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡 set by the pilot.
Fig. 22 Closed-loop response of the airspeed
𝑉
, the
angle of attack
𝛼
, the pitch angle
𝜃
, and the pitch rate
𝑞
to a step input of 0.1 rad to 𝜃𝑡 𝑎𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡 .
URL https://evtol.com/features/behind-the-controls-of-an-evtol-aircraft-a-test-pilots-perspective/ [cited 15 June 2021]
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 23 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
The lateral controller is structured as described by How [
21
] for a lateral controller that takes a heading input and
performs coordinated turns. A gain K calculates the appropriate roll angle
𝜙
based on the error in the yaw angle
𝜓
. The
error in the yaw angle is then fed through a controller block, whose output is compared to the roll rate which has a gain
(proportional controller) applied. The output of this comparison is fed as a command to the aileron actuator. At the
same time, another feedback loop with a washout filter on the yaw rate attempts to bring the yaw rate to zero. This is the
yaw damper designed to reduce low-frequency oscillations (Dutch roll).
The aileron and rudder actuators are modelled as
1
0.15𝑠+1
and
3.33
𝑠+3.33
, respectively. In order to reduce oscillations in
the response, a PI controller was used for CTRL 4 in Figure 20 instead of the proportional controller in the original work.
In Figure 23, the Bode plot showing the response of the heading angle
𝜓
to the pilot input
𝜓𝑡 𝑎𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡
is shown. The
system is closed-loop stable with a gain margin of 12.4 dB and a phase margin of -180 degrees. These margins are not
as good as for the longitudinal case, so there is further room for optimisation. This is confirmed by the step responses
shown in Figure 24 are also slower and more oscillatory than for the longitudinal controller.
In Figure 25, the poles and zeroes of the open-loop system can be seen. All poles are now stable (with a negative
real part), which is an improvement over the open-loop system in Figure 16. However, the asymmetric system now has
two zeroes in the right half-plane. This can lead to the system’s initial response being in the opposite direction of its
final value. This can, in fact, be observed in the evolution of
𝑟
in Figure 24. This confirms that in future iterations of the
design, the lateral controller may have to be reviewed to improve handling qualities.
Fig. 23 Bode plot of the closed-loop response of
𝜓
to
𝜓𝑡 𝑎𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡 set by the pilot.
Fig. 24 Closed-loop response of the sideslip angle
𝛽
, the
roll angle
𝜙
, the roll rate
𝑝
, the yaw rate
𝑟
, and the yaw
angle 𝜓to a step input of 0.5 rad to 𝜓𝑡𝑎 𝑟𝑔 𝑒𝑡 .
IV. Controllability in Hover
In hover mode, the oncoming airspeed experienced by the vehicle is very low. Therefore, aerodynamic control
surfaces are not an effective means of control and thrust vectoring and differential thrust must be used. In order to
quantify the controllability of the eVTOL in hover, the Available Control Authority Index (ACAI) developed by Du et al.
[
22
] is used. The ACAI is designed to evaluate available control authority of hovering multirotor vehicles with fixed
rotors. While the Wigeon can tilt its rotors (by tilting the wings), neglecting this possibility for hover control simplifies
the analysis considerably while also being conservative.
Du et al. [
22
] model the dynamics of a hovering multicopter using a state-space system of the form given in
Equation 79. 8 states are considered, which are given in Equation 80. These include the altitude
, the roll angle
𝜙
, the
pitch angle
𝜃
, the yaw angle
𝜓
, the vertical speed
𝑣
, the roll rate
𝑝
, the pitch rate
𝑞
, and the yaw rate
𝑟
. Equation 81
shows the control variables, which are the total thrust force
𝑇
, the roll moment
𝑁
, the pitch moment
𝑀
, and the yaw
moment 𝐿. The weight 𝑚𝑎·𝑔is also included in this vector for the sake of convenience.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 24 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 25 Map of the closed-loop poles and zeroes of the aircraft in cruise. Crosses indicate poles, circles indicate
zeroes.
¤𝑥
¤𝑥
¤𝑥=𝐴𝑥
𝑥
𝑥+𝐵𝑢
𝑢
𝑢(79) 𝑥
𝑥
𝑥=hℎ 𝜙 𝜃 𝜓 𝑣 𝑝 𝑞 𝑟i𝑇
(80)
𝑢
𝑢
𝑢=𝐹
𝐹
𝐹𝐺
𝐺
𝐺=h𝑇 𝐿 𝑀 𝑁 i𝑇h𝑚𝑎·𝑔000i𝑇
(81)
According to Du et al. [
22
], there are two necessary and sufficient conditions for multirotor controllability in hover:
1) rank C(𝐴, 𝐵)=8
2) ACAI > 0
C(𝐴, 𝐵)
is defined by Equation 82, where
𝐴
and
𝐵
are the state and input matrices of the state-space system in
Equation 79. However, this condition was not found to be limiting for the eVTOL under any condition.
C(𝐴, 𝐵)=h𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 . . . 𝐴7𝐵i(82)
The procedure for calculating the ACAI is described in [
22
] in detail. The calculation is implemented in Python
using the Matlab Toolbox [
23
] developed by Du et al. [
22
] as an example and means of verification. At this point, only
the inputs required to perform the calculation are listed in Table 6. Note that since the origin of the coordinate system is
the centre of mass, this is also implicitly an input to the calculation.
Table 6 Input parameters to the calculation of the ACAI [22].
Parameter Description
𝑥1, 𝑥2, . . . , 𝑥𝑚x-position of each rotor w.r.t the centre of mass
𝑦1, 𝑦2, . . . , 𝑦𝑚y-position of each rotor w.r.t the centre of mass
𝐾1, 𝐾2, . . . , 𝐾𝑚Maximum thrust of each rotor
𝑘𝜇Ratio between reactive torque and thrust of a rotor
𝑤1, 𝑤2, . . . , 𝑤𝑚Direction of rotation of each rotor
𝜂1, 𝜂2, . . . , 𝜂𝑚Efficiency parameter of each rotor
𝑚𝑎Vehicle mass
In order to calculate the ACAI of the eVTOL, it is assumed that the rotors are located at 0.5 m and 6.1 m from the
aircraft nose (for the front and rear wing, respectively), and evenly spaced between 1.0 m and 4.1 m outwards from the
symmetry plane. The parameter
𝑘𝜇
is assumed to be 0.1 based on the values used by Du et. al [
22
]. As for the direction
of rotation of the propellers, they are all taken to be rotating inboard.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 25 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Using these values, along with the MTOM and the maximum thrust per rotor, an ACAI of 350.0 is obtained. Since
this is positive, the aircraft is controllable. However, the design is not the most efficient design possible for hover, since
the forward CG location causes the front rotors to be more loaded in hover.
This was highlighted in a sensitivity study conducted to understand the influcence of different parameters. Figure 26
shows the dependency of the ACAI is on the centre of gravity location
𝑥𝑐𝑔
. The best controllability is achieved when
the centre of gravity lies in the middle between the wings. The Wigeon’s centre of gravity lies in front of this, leading to
suboptimal performance. Due to this, the ACAI of the Wigeon increases when the front wing is moved forward, away
from the centre of gravity (which gives them a larger moment arm).
Fig. 26 Variation of the ACAI with 𝑥𝑐𝑔 .
Lateral placement of rotors also plays a role: spreading the rotors out over a larger range increases the ACAI. In
other words, placing the rotors closer to the symmetry plane on one side and further towards the wingtips on the other
side improves performance. Other parameters behave as expected, where a larger mass reduces the ACAI and a higher
thrust increases it.
Finally, the effect of the parameter
𝑘𝜇
was investigated (see Figure 27). The contribution of this coefficient is crucial
for yaw control, and estimating it accurately at a preliminary stage is challenging. However, variations in
𝑘𝜇
do not lead
to uncontrollable behaviour unless
𝑘𝜇=
0. Its value also does not create more restrictive limits on other parameters, so
finding a precise value is not necessary at a preliminary stage.
The ACAI also allows to evaluate performance after rotor failures. To model this, the efficiency factors
𝜂
are set to
zero for the corresponding rotors. This method can be used to ensure that hover control is failsafe.
V. Transition
Having established how the eVTOL can be made controllable both in hover and in cruise flight, it remains to be
shown that the available control inputs can achieve the transition between these two flight modes. This phase of the
flight is very difficult to model, so only a qualitative statement will be made in this article.
The dominant aspect of transition is the acceleration/deceleration between stall speed and zero airspeed. This is
achieved by tilting the rotors between their vertical orientation in hover to a horizontal orientation in cruise flight. Due
to the low airspeed, most of the control authority will be obtained from the rotors rather than aerodynamic surfaces.
Therefore, it is assumed that control of other state variables than horizontal speed is achieved in the same way as in
hover.
In order to design a controller for the transition phase, certain aerodynamic aspects must be taken into account.
These mostly relate to the nature of the flow during transition which becomes very difficult to predict due to hysteresis.
In fact, during transition, there is a sudden change from fully separated to attached flow which in turn translates to a
sudden change in lift over the wings. Additionally, the modelling unpredictability is enhanced due to the phenomenon of
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 26 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 27 Variation of the ACAI with 𝑘𝜇.
hysteresis where the stalling characteristics of the aircraft depend on the flow’s history. Furthermore, an unpredictable
atmosphere can increase the complexity of the model, which e.g. the case of a sudden change in wind gust (whether it is
a change in magnitude or direction), the flow over wings may re-attach or separate sooner/later than predicted.
For the pure transition phase itself, the controller must also be able to react accordingly for a range of different
situations such as if the flow separates/(re-)attaches first at the forward wing, or if the flow first (re-)attaches/separates
at the rear wing or for the rarest case that the nature of the flow changes at the same time for both wings. It can be
understood that all these different situations create different and unpredictable pitching moments, that can be aggravated
by an unpredictable atmosphere as explained previously. The latter introduces a dangerous transient response, which
shows the need for a robust controller.
There is yet another complication: due to the high angles of attack attained during transition, there is an increased
risk that the rear rotors could enter the wake of the front rotors or front wing, thereby leading to a sudden loss in thrust.
The aircraft has its entire wing tilting which will create a larger wake, which is a risk that will certainly need attention.
Because of this, a quantitative analysis of transition dynamics is beyond the scope of this paper.
VI. Ground Stability
The placement of the landing gear is restricted in the design of the Wigeon aircraft due to crashworthiness
considerations that dictate that no stiff structure shall be located directly below human occupants [
1
]. Therefore, the rear
landing gear is placed far aft behind the passenger cabin (at 4.76 m from the nose) and the traditional single nose gear is
replaced by two gears (at 1.36 m from the nose) to be able to place them next to the pilot rather than below.
With this restriction in mind, a total of five criteria are considered. The two first among these are the maximum
turn-over angle and the minimum load on the steering wheels. The former requires that the centre of gravity of the
aircraft must be located at an angle of 55 degrees above the line connecting the nose wheels and the rear wheels. This
criterion is originally proposed for tricycle landing gears in [
5
], but is extended to quadricycle landing gears, as shown
in Figure 28.
The purpose of this requirement is to avoid the the eVTOL tipping over to the side while taxiing. The load criterion
on the steering wheels (which are the nose wheels in the case of the Wigeon) is related to controllability [
5
]. It requires
that at least 8% of the total aircraft weight must rest on the steering wheels for them to achieve their function.
Three additional requirements are the clearance of the wings when they are vertical, clearance of the rotors when the
wings are horizontal, and the maximum tip-back angle. The last two requirements are common in conventional aircraft,
but would only be relevant for emergency situations for the Wigeon. This is because in a conventional mission, it would
land vertically with the rotors oriented upwards. However, it is assumed that the landing gear can tolerate a landing with
wings in horizontal configuration on a regular airfield [
1
]. This could allow for a safe landing if the rotation mechanism
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 27 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Fig. 28 Definition of the turn-over angle for a quadricycle landing gear.
of one or both wings should fail during cruise.
The critical requirement for clearance is found to be the root chord of the wing when in vertical position, dictating
the required height of the landing gear. The track width of the landing gear is determined by the turn-over requirement.
The corresponding equations are Equation 83 and Equation 84. Note that it is chosen to use the same track width for the
front and rear wheels. This is because reducing the track width in one of them would have required an increase in the
other in order to satisfy the turn-over requirement. Therefore, this design minimises the maximum track width.
tan(𝜓𝑡 𝑜 )=𝑧𝑐𝑔 +𝑙 𝑔
𝑡𝑤 /2(83) tan(𝜙𝑐𝑙 )=tan(Γ)𝑦𝑟 𝑜 𝑡 +𝑙𝑔 +𝑧𝑓𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑡 /2
𝑦𝑟𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑤/2(84)
Here,
𝜓𝑡𝑜
is the turn-over angle,
𝑧𝑐𝑔
is the z-location of the aircraft’s centre of gravity,
𝑙𝑔
is the height of the
landing gear,
𝑡𝑤
is the track width of the landing gear,
𝜙𝑐𝑙
is the clearance angle,
Γ
is the front wing’s dihedral,
𝑦𝑟𝑜𝑡
is
the spanwise location where the wing rotates,
𝑧𝑓
is the z-location of the front wing root chord, and
𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑡
is the maximum
length of the chord behind the rotation point (i.e., radius of the circle traced by the trailing edge of the front wing when
rotating). In order to increase the clearance for the rotated wing,
𝑧𝑓
is decreased by 10 cm compared to its real value,
leading to a 10 cm higher landing gear.
Solving Equations 83 and 84 for
𝑙𝑔
and
𝑡𝑤
, with the recommended values
𝜓𝑡𝑜
= 55 degrees and
𝜙𝑐𝑙
= 5 degrees
from [
5
], and applying the additional 10 cm clearance, yields a landing gear height of 0.9278 m and a track width of
2.220 m. The track width is therefore 0.8400 m wider than the fuselage, meaning that the landing gear must be deployed
0.4200 m outboard of the fuselage.
VII. Integration of Stability and Control into the Design Process
So far, the design process for stability and control of the Wigeon has been presented in isolation, assuming that all
other aircraft parameters are known. However, this is rather different from the approach taken to design the aircraft. To
obtain a convergent design, the calculations from different disciplines are integrated in a single design code that allowed
for a high degree of automation. In this code, an initial set of parameters is iteratively altered until all requirements
are met. First, the wings are sized according to the procedure explained in subsection III.B, then hover controllability
is checked to see that any one engine could fail while maintaining controllability. If this is not initially the case, the
thrust-to-weight ratio is increased until the requirement is met. Then, the CG excursion is calculated and used to place
the landing gear optimally, and the process monitors whether the track width does not become too high. Sizing the
vertical tail and control surfaces is one of the last steps in one iteration, since they are not found to be an issue in most
cases, which limits their influence on other design aspects. The simulation and controller design for cruise is done
manually after a converged design had been found.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 28 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations
In this article, a set of methods has been proposed to evaluate and design for stability and control of a tandem
tilt-wing eVTOL aircraft during the preliminary design phase. The procedure is presented using the Wigeon long-range
eVTOL concept as an example, but could be used for any other vehicle in the same category. Future work should
include verification of the linearised dynamics model for cruise using CFD software. A number of CFD simulations
could be performed at different angles with respect to the incoming flow to characterise the behaviour of the aircraft.
Furthermore, the stability and control effects in transition and the governing aerodynamics should be studied further.
Credit authorship contribution statement
M. Cuadrat-Grzybowski, J.J. Schoser: Methodology, investigation, formal analysis, validation, software, writing -
original draft preparation, writing - reviewing and editing. S.G.P. Castro: Conceptualization, supervision, writing -
reviewing and editing.
Acknowledgments
This work has been developed as part of the Design Synthesis and Exercise "Multi-Disciplinary Design and
Optimisation of a Long-Range eVTOL Aircraft", given during the Spring quarter in 2021. We would like to thank our
fellow companions Javier Alba Maestre, Egon Beyne, Michael Buszek, Alejandro Montoya Santamaria, Nikita Poliakov,
Koen Prud’homme van Reine, Noah Salvador López and Kaizad Wadia who are part of the team conducting this design.
Additionally, we would like to thank Davide Biagini and Dr. Ali Nokhbatolfoghahai for their generous help, advice
and supervision in composing this project. We would also like to thank Dr. Erik-Jan van Kampen for providing us with
guidance in the early phase of this project.
References
[1]
Alba-Maestre, J., Beyne, E., Buszek, M., Cuadrat-Grzybowski, M., Montoya Santamaria, A., Poliakov, N., Prud’homme van
Reine, K., Salvador Lopez, N., Schoser, J., and Wadia, K., “Final Report - Multi-Disciplinary Design and Optimisation of a
Long-Range eVTOL Aircraft,” Tech. rep., Delft University of Technology, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5576103.
[2]
Alba-Maestre, J., Beyne, E., Buszek, M., Cuadrat-Grzybowski, M., Montoya Santamaria, A., Poliakov, N., Prud’homme van
Reine, K., Salvador Lopez, N., Schoser, J., and Wadia, K., “Baseline Report - Multi-Disciplinary Design and Optimisation of
Long-Range eVTOL Aircraft,” Tech. rep., Delft University of Technology, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5575953.
[3]
Alba-Maestre, J., Prud’homme van Reine, K., Sinnige, T., and Castro, S. G. P., “Preliminary propulsion and power system design
of a tandem-wing long-range eVTOL aircraft,” Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 23, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112311083.
[4]
Chauhan, S. S., and Martins, J. R., “Tilt-wing eVTOL takeoff trajectory optimization,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 57, 2020, pp.
93–112. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035476.
[5] Torenbeek, E., Synthesis of subsonic airplane design, Delft University Press, 1982.
[6] Oliviero, F., “Requirement Analysis and Design Principles for AC Stability and Control (Part 1),” , 2 2021.
[7]
Salvador López, N., Montoya Santamaría, A., and Castro, S. G. P., “Preliminary aerodynamic analysis for the multi-disciplinary
design and optimisation of a long-range eVTOL aircraft,” AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2022.
[8] Raymer, D. P., “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach,” , 1992.
[9]
Alba-Maestre, J., Beyne, E., Buszek, M., Cuadrat-Grzybowski, M., Montoya Santamaria, A., Poliakov, N., Prud’homme van
Reine, K., Salvador Lopez, N., Schoser, J., and Wadia, K., “Midterm Report - Multi-Disciplinary Design and Optimisation of a
Long-Range eVTOL Aircraft,” Tech. rep., Delft University of Technology, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5576027.
[10]
Boling, J., and Zha, G. C., “Numerical investigation of longitudinal static stability of a high-speed tandem-wing vtol vehicle
using coflow jet airfoil,AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, AIAA, 2021, pp.
1–22. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-1732.
[11]
J.A. Mulder, W.H.J.J van Staveren, J.C. van der Vaart, E. de Weerdt, C.C. de Visser, A.C. in ’t Veld & E. Mooij, AE3202 Flight
Dynamics Lecture Notes, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2013.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 29 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
[12]
Chen, H., “Effectiveness of Thrust Vectoring Control for Longitudinal Trim of a Blended Wing Body Aircraft,” Tech. rep.,
2015. URL http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:de4a4261-0948- 45e9-9525-b78e2a664af2.
[13] Sadraey, M., Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, 2012.
[14] Caughey, D. A., Introduction to Aircraft Stability and Control Course Notes for AE5070, 2011.
[15] D., S., “Aircraft Design,” Tech. rep., Hamburg Open Online University (HOOU), 2017.
[16]
O., A.-S., R., A., and H. S., H., “An Educational Rudder Sizing Algorithm for Utilization in Aircraft Design Software,” Tech.
Rep. 10, 2018. URL http://www.ripublication.com.
[17]
O., A.-S., R., A., and H. S., H., “An instructive algorithm for aircraft elevator sizing to be used in preliminary aircraft design
software,” Vol. 4, 2017, pp. 489–494. https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes15-14829.
[18]
Al-Shamma, O., Ali, R., and Hasan, H. S., “Programmable Aileron Sizing Algorithm for use in Preliminary Aircraft Design
Software,” Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13, 2018. URL http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/jeasci/
2018/3458-3462.pdf .
[19] Oliviero, F., “Aircraft aerodynamic analysis – Mobile surfaces on the wing,” 2019.
[20]
S., G., “Miscellaneous Design Notes,” General Aviation Aircraft Design, Elsevier, 2014, pp. 947–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/
b978-0-12-397308- 5.00023-4.
[21]
How, J. P., “Aircraft Lateral Autopilots,” Tech. rep., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004. URL https://ocw.mit.edu/
courses/aeronautics-and- astronautics/16-333- aircraft-stability-and-control-fall-2004/lecture-notes/lecture_12.pdf .
[22]
Du, G. X., Quan, Q., Yang, B., and Cai, K. Y., “Controllability analysis for multirotor helicopter rotor degradation and failure,
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2015, pp. 978–984. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000731, URL
https://arc-aiaa- org.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.G000731.
[23]
Du, G.-X., and Quan, Q., “A Matlab Toolbox for Calculating an Available Control Authority Index of Multicopters,” , 3 2016.
URL http://rfly.buaa.edu.cn/resources.
A. Verification Procedures
A. Verification of Stability Derivatives Model
The verification of the analytical model is performed in a series of steps. First, a number of small unit tests are
done in order to verify that the expected change in the stability derivatives is correct. Finally, the model’s outputs are
compared to already existing aircraft, in terms of magnitude and sign, where the latter is of utmost importance and
should be similar for a specific number of stability and control derivatives.
1. Unit test - CG shift
The unit test performed in this subsection is a shift in the CG of the aircraft. In order to perform a complete and
concise unit test verification, only a small number of stability derivatives for both longitudinal (
𝐶𝑋𝛼
,
𝐶𝑚𝛼
and
𝐶𝑚𝑞
) and
lateral (𝐶𝑛𝛽and 𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟) motions are shown due to their high number.
Specific simplified equations of the change of longitudinal stability derivatives can be found in [
11
] and are compared
to the ones obtained by the code. For the lateral stability derivatives, the qualitative shift is verified. The results of the
latter can be summarised in Table 7.
From Table 7, it can be seen that the unit tests are successful. Even though minor differences in
𝐶𝑚𝛼
and large
differences in
𝐶𝑚𝑞
can be seen, these can be simply explained by the fact that the equations used from [
11
] are simplified
and assume a conventional aircraft configuration, which does not have the same analytical equations. Even with these
differences, the trend is still the same and hence with the aforementioned the analytical modules have been independently
verified.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 30 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Table 7 Summarised Results of the CG Unit Test, the expected outcome of those tests and the actual result.
Verification Test Expected Outcome Obtained output
Shift in 𝑥𝑐𝑔 by factor of 2 Δ𝐶𝑋𝛼=0(no dependency)
Δ𝐶𝑚𝛼=11.973 (destabilising)
Δ𝐶𝑚𝑞=41.1467
Decrease in 𝐶𝑛𝛽
Decrease in magnitude of 𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟
Δ𝐶𝑋𝛼𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=0
Δ𝐶𝑚𝛼𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=11.756
Δ𝐶𝑚𝑞𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=33.21419
Δ𝐶𝑛𝛽𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=0.062499
Δ𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=0.35528
Shift in 𝑥𝑐𝑔 by factor of 0.5 Δ𝐶𝑋𝛼=0(no dependency)
Δ𝐶𝑚𝛼=5.986615 (stabilising)
Δ𝐶𝑚𝑞=5.54833
Increase in 𝐶𝑛𝛽
Increase in magnitude of 𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟
Δ𝐶𝑋𝛼𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=0
Δ𝐶𝑚𝛼𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=5.878075
Δ𝐶𝑚𝑞𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=12.9931
Δ𝐶𝑛𝛽𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=0.028641
Δ𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙
=0.162813
2. Comparison with existing aircraft
This subsection briefly presents the strategy to verify the order of magnitude and sign of the stability derivatives
using the reference values for different aircraft in clean cruise configuration found in the appendices of [
11
]. These
values are generated using the vortex lattice method.
First, it is essential to mention the differences. The main difference that is observed is the magnitude of the
derivatives:
𝐶𝑚𝑞
,
𝐶𝑍¤𝛼
,
𝐶𝑚¤𝛼
,
𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒
,
𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒
and for certain aircraft the down-force
ˆ𝑢
-derivative
𝐶𝑍𝑢
. For
𝐶𝑚𝑞
and
𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒
, it
can be explained by the fact that both wings are far from the centre of gravity and hence acting as a canard and a tail
simultaneously.
𝐶𝑚𝑞
is hence approximately doubled, whereas
𝐶𝑍𝛿𝑒
is zero due to the way the elevator is used. In
fact, the elevator is used in the same manner as an aileron and hence explains that both down-forces for both wings
cancel out. This further explains the fact that
𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒
is approximately twice as large, as both elevators (instead of one for
conventional aircraft) allow for a higher pitching down moment. The
¤𝛼
-derivatives of the Wigeon are mostly 1.5 to
twice as large as reference values, which can be explained by their high sensitivity to the specific configuration and
atmospheric conditions. Lastly,
𝐶𝑍𝑢
is significantly smaller than for certain aircraft. This is mainly due to the fact that
the eVTOL is flying at subsonic speeds which relates to very low compressibility effects. Additionally, aero-elastic
effects which also affect the derivative are neglected.
In terms of similarities, it can be observed that the rest of derivatives have identical sign, especially for the dominant
stability derivatives w.r.t to their respective angle rates (
𝑞
,
𝑝
and
𝑟
) and the control derivatives which shows that the
model uses the same conventions. Last but not least, the assumption of the derivatives
𝐶𝑋¤𝛼
,
𝐶𝑋𝑞
,
𝐶𝑋𝛿𝑒
and
𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑎
being
zero is also the case of a wide range of different and hence verifying the validity of the assumption.
With the latter, it can be concluded that the model shows results that are very similar to other aircraft and its
discrepancies can be easily explained by the dual-wing nature of eVTOL. Hence this confirms that the model can be
used as an early preliminary tool to obtain stability and control derivatives of tandem wing (or large canard) aircraft.
Computational methods however must still be applied in order to obtain more accurate estimates of the stability behaviour
of the aircraft.
B. Verification of Cruise Dynamics Using Numerical Model
In this section the system test to verify the dynamic model is presented. The verification procedure consists of
verifying the value of the eigenvalues of the stability matrix A. These define the stability behaviour of the different
eigenmotions of the aircraft. Before starting the procedure it is essential to mention that the verification model outputs
the eigenvalues in normalised form, defined as
𝜆𝑐=¯𝑐
𝑉0·𝜆
for longitudinal motions and
𝜆𝑏=𝑏
𝑉0·𝜆
for lateral and hence
must be transformed to their non-normalised form. The results are summarised in Table 8. From Table 8, it can be seen
that there is no difference between both models in terms of stability behaviour of the aircraft. The system test is hence
successful and the model implementation of the state-space matrices is confirmed to be correct.
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 31 of 32
Preliminary control and stability analysis of a long-range eVTOL aircraft
Table 8 Eigenvalues computed by the model
𝜆
, the numerical model for verification normalised
𝜆𝑐
or
𝜆𝑏
eigenvalues and the error
Eigenmotion Model eigenvalue 𝜆Numerical model eigenvalue 𝜆cor 𝜆bError:Re(𝜆),Im(𝜆)(%)
Short period 2.47; 0.89 0.04332; 0.01557 0, 0
Phugoid 0.0226 ±0.0361 𝑗0.0003960 ±0.0006318 𝑗0, 0
Aperiodic roll 2.52 ±0𝑗0.28690 ±0𝑗0, 0
Dutch roll 0.00699 ±0.97 𝑗0.0007948 ±0.1103 𝑗0, 0
Spiral 0.0125 ±0𝑗0.0014239 ±0𝑗0, 0
M Cuadrat-Grzybowski, JJ Schoser, SGP Castro Proceedings paper AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum Page 32 of 32
... Ref. [16] evaluated the controllability of a tandem tilt-wing eVTOL in hover, ignoring aerodynamic effects, using the ACAI developed in Ref. [9]. Ref. [17] scrutinized the maneuverability of an LC-VTOL across its diverse flight phases using the maneuverability set, defined as the collection of attainable translational accelerations. ...
... An examination of Eqs. (14)(15)(16) reveals that only columns containing zero elements are removed, implying that the rank of ,˜ remains unaffected. Second, the state matrix and the eigenvectors of its transpose are unaffected, and we havẽ ...
... Furthermore, a propeller's thrust and torque are assumed to be linear with the square of the rotational speed. These assumptions, well-entrenched in existing literature [9,11,13,15,16], are deemed reasonable. We define the physical control input as phys = 2 1 · · · 2 10 , with the propeller angular rates , as well as the aileron, elevator and rudder deflections , , and . ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper introduces an approach for evaluating and quantifying the controllability of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft across various flight states. By employing the controllability theory for linear systems subject to bounded control, this study derives sufficient conditions for the local controllability of the nonlinear VTOL system. These conditions are cohesively integrated with the trimmability condition directly derived from nonlinear dynamics, establishing a comprehensive criterion that facilitates the assessment of both trimmability and controllability of VTOL aircraft. This unified criterion elucidates the relation between desired and achievable specific forces and moments with clear implications for flight mechanics. Building upon this criterion, a distance-based metric is proposed to quantify the controllability, with an optimization-based algorithm developed for its calculation. Focusing on an exemplary lift plus cruise VTOL aircraft, this study investigates controllability variations within the aircraft’s velocity envelope and assesses the impact of rotor failures on controllability. These applications demonstrate the proposed method’s effectiveness in quantifying the controllability of VTOL aircraft in various flight conditions.
... Thu et al. [9] proposed an accurate analytical method to improve the performance prediction of eVTOL UAV under stable level flight conditions. Beyne and Schoser et al. [10,11] conducted a preliminary study on the performance analysis method of long-range eVTOL aircraft with tandem wing configuration. In addition, in terms of range estimation, Dundar and Xu et al. proposed a range duration estimation method for UAV aircraft, while Traub et al. estimated the range and endurance of electric aircraft by establishing a relationship [12][13][14]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, there has been rapid development in electric aircraft, particularly electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, as part of efforts to promote green aviation. During the conceptual design stage, it is crucial to select appropriate values for key parameters and conduct sensitivity analysis on these parameters. This study focuses on an electric tilt-rotor aircraft and proposes a performance analysis method for electric aircraft while developing a general design tool specifically for this type of aircraft. Subsequently, the impact of wing incidence angle, sweep angle, span, propeller solidity, battery-specific energy, and battery mass on range, maximum takeoff weight, and hover power are analyzed. The results show that the battery mass, wingspan, and wingtip chord length have great effects on the maximum takeoff weight; among these, battery mass had the greatest influence. In terms of range, the battery energy density has a great positive effect on range, while the increase in wing angle of incidence, wingtip chord length and battery mass have some negative effects on range.
... With that purpose, a controller was designed with the aim of handling quality improvement. The analytical model was applied to estimate stability derivatives (Schoser et al.,2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Aeronautical applications of morphing technologies are continued to increase their popularity and wide spread application during last years. The technology takes place in not only military, but also civil applications that aims providing superior performances to manned or unmanned aircraft than conventional configurations. However, multidisciplinary approach is required for an aerial vehicle to have ultimate outcome from such an application due to existence of interdisciplinary interactions. Therefore, this research aims to investigate effects of morphing wingtip application on longitudinal and lateral-directional stabilities of a fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicle, which have remarkable effect on autonomous control performance considerations. In this article, morphing wingtip refers to folding the wing from a determined spanwise location with a dihedral angle. With the aim of the study, wingtips of an unmanned aerial vehicle were folded with 15, 30 and 45 degrees of dihedral angles to be compared with original non-dihedral design. Longitudinal and lateral-directional characteristics of new variations were evaluated in terms of stability derivatives by means of linearized equations of motion that were also presented in state-space representation. Aerodynamic impacts of each variation were assessed by means of computational results obtained from analyses with three-dimensional panel method. Furthermore, taking inertial changes into consideration, concluding remarks on both longitudinal and lateral-directional stability derivatives were presented for each configuration.
... In the preliminary estimate the tandem wings are placed as far apart as the fuselage length and height allowed to [7,8]. Further investigations allowed to explore how the wing placement affects the aerodynamic performance, as well as stability and control traits [29]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1331.vid This study presents a method for modelling the aerodynamic performance of a tandem wing long-range eVTOL aircraft at an early design stage. This procedure is applied to the design of the Wigeon eVTOL which has a tandem wing configuration with open rotor distributed propulsion. The proposed method evaluates the effect of multiple design variables on the aerodynamic performance of the eVTOL, which can then be used in multidisciplinary optimization frameworks. Firstly, the design of the wing planform is discussed, followed by the procedure for airfoil selection. Then, an analysis of the performance of the lifting surfaces is presented, in which the propeller-wing interaction and wing-wing interactions are modelled. After this the component drag method used for estimating the drag forces acting on the aircraft is discussed. An aerodynamics model used to simulate the transition flight phase of the aircraft is proposed, followed by a sensitivity analysis on relevant design variables and assumed design constants. Finally, the verification of the proposed analysis methods is outlined.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Around the world, many cities suffer from increasing traffic and congestion problems. Vertical takeoff and landing aircraft are a promising technology to alleviate this problem. Due to their ability to overfly obstacles, move independently of ground infrastructure and take off from anywhere, they could allow for very fast door-to-door transport. It is the aim of this DSE project to explore this market opportunity and design a VTOL aircraft that can carry four passengers over 300 km. Due to the growing relevance of sustainability in transport, the design space will be constrained to electric VTOLs (eVTOL). The mission need statement of the project is as follows: "Provide sustainable, personal aerial transportation for intercity travel that is competitive with the current transportation methods while requiring minimal infrastructure." In the report at hand, several aspects of this mission are investigated in detail and the information is used to generate technical requirements. Finally, possible designs for the mission are identified and selected for further analysis. Chapter 2 outlines the functional analysis of all stages of the project. This is a crucial step in the design, since analysing the functions required by the design process and eVTOL provide a clear picture of the use case. On a high level, the functions were investigated in five phases: mission introduction, aircraft design, production and delivery of the aircraft, operation of the aircraft, and disposal of the aircraft. Aircraft operation is of the greatest interest to the customer, which is why it is analysed in greater detail than the others: the steps taken in preflight actions, take-off, cruise, extending the mission, landing and post-flight actions are broken down to up to four levels to capture detail. The result can be seen in the functional flow block diagram and functional breakdown structure. In Chapter 3, the market opportunities for a long-range eVTOL are explored. Among the possible target industries, the commercial transport and private sector were deemed the most promising. With its range of 300 km, the eVTOL could satisfy the needs of intracity travel, but most importantly be used for intercity travel as well. In Europe, 300 km is a typical distance to be covered by commuters and tourists in business and personal trips. It is in this market segment where a long-range eVTOL could hope to gain a lot of traction. Furthermore, it could be a comfortable personal mode of transport for higher income populations. Europe and the United States provide good conditions for this. Europe in particular is suitable since it has many major cities at small distances from each other. Based on previous studies, it was concluded that a market size of 15 billion US dollars could be achieved by 2040 for eVTOLs in the chosen market segment. This corresponds to annual sales of about 5000 units. The team could aim to partake in this with 205 eVTOL vehicles sold per year, priced at 1.53 million apiece. The direct competitors would be helicopters and other eVTOL projects. To inform the sustainable planning of the project, Chapter 4 lays out a literature review on the environmental and social sustainability of eVTOLs. It is found that eVTOLs produce less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional internal combustion engine cars for distances longer than 50 km. Larger distances allow the eVTOL to take advantage of the aerodynamically optimised cruise configuration. However, the sustainability of eVTOLs may be limited by their energy source. Especially Lithium-Ion batteries cause high environmental impact in production and are created from scarce natural resources often obtained from mines with questionable humanitarian standards. Therefore, alternative batteries or hydrogen fuel cells should be considered as alternatives. Management of the technical risk was done in Chapter 5. Technical risks include risks associated with technical failures of the aircraft, but also errors made during the design. First the main technical risks were identified, and given a score based on the severity of the risk. In total 22 risks were identified. Using these scores the most severe risks were selected, a total of 9 risks were deemed necessary to manage. These were managed by either reducing the probability of occurrence or the consequence associated with that risk. For most risks this was done by requiring minor design features to be added to the concepts. In Chapter 6 technical budgets were allocated to the different systems of the aircraft. This can help in the design of the different systems, as the designers have an idea as to how much resources they can use for their system. Budgets were made for weight, cost, thrust, drag and power. Apart from allocating budgets, also the resource contingencies were determined for each design stage. These contingencies represent a margin to the maximum change in budget size for each subsystem. If the contingency is exceed, either a redesign or a change of the initial budget size should be considered. As can be expected, the contingency margins reduce when the design progresses, as the level of detail increases, and with it the uncertainty in resource usage. The requirement discovery (documented in Chapter 7) was initiated with the identification of the stakeholders of the project, as well as their needs. The stakeholders identified for the project were the customer, regulatory bodies, citizens, passengers and the pilot. Their needs were compiled into requirements, that were then further used to create system and subsystem requirements. The subsystems investigated were the propulsion, power, control, structure, cabin, and lifting subsystems. From this, 8 key stakeholder requirements and 14 driving requirements were distilled to guide the design. Finally, Chapter 8 used a design option tree to identify three relevant options for further investigation.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1331.vid This study presents a method for modelling the aerodynamic performance of a tandem wing long-range eVTOL aircraft at an early design stage. This procedure is applied to the design of the Wigeon eVTOL which has a tandem wing configuration with open rotor distributed propulsion. The proposed method evaluates the effect of multiple design variables on the aerodynamic performance of the eVTOL, which can then be used in multidisciplinary optimization frameworks. Firstly, the design of the wing planform is discussed, followed by the procedure for airfoil selection. Then, an analysis of the performance of the lifting surfaces is presented, in which the propeller-wing interaction and wing-wing interactions are modelled. After this the component drag method used for estimating the drag forces acting on the aircraft is discussed. An aerodynamics model used to simulate the transition flight phase of the aircraft is proposed, followed by a sensitivity analysis on relevant design variables and assumed design constants. Finally, the verification of the proposed analysis methods is outlined.
Article
Full-text available
Novel eVTOL aircraft configurations are picking up momentum in the emerging market of urban air mobility (UAM). These configurations feature electrical power systems and distributed propulsion architectures, both uncommon i