See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281461479

Modeling and controller design of a VTOL UAV

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.1109/ICUAS.2015.7152307

CITATIONS READS
19 4,699

8 authors, including:

Ozan Tekinalp Anıl Sami Önen

Middle East Technical University Middle East Technical University
84 PUBLICATIONS   578 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dilek Funda Kurtulus Levent Cevher

Middle East Technical University Middle East Technical University
160 PUBLICATIONS   737 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a Thrust Vectoring System with Coanda Effect / Coanda Etkisi ile Çalışan İtki Yönlendirme Sistemi Geliştirilmesi View project

Flapping flight View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dilek Funda Kurtulus on 09 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Modeling and Controller Design of a VTOL UAV*
Anil Sami Onen, Levent Cevher, Murat Senipek, Talha Mutlu, Osman Gungor, Ismail Ozdemir
Uzunlar, Dilek Funda Kurtulus, Ozan Tekinalp

Abstract— A tilt rotor VTOL UAV in tri-copter

configuration is developed. The vehicle is modeled using the
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VTOL UAV
blade element formulation for the propulsion system, and the The VTOL UAV will take-off vertically and after a
aerodynamic properties are obtained from a 3D panel code. transition will go into a forward flight as a conventional
Linear quadratic regulators and linear quadratic tracking aircraft. It has three rotors. Two of them mounted on a
controllers are designed for the attitude control of the aircraft single shaft for simultaneous tilting of the propellers from
in vertical takeoff and hover flight conditions. The vehicle is
vertical to horizontal or vice-versa. One servo motor is used
built and hover flight tests are carried out. The results
demonstrate the success of the modeling carried out and the for the tilt the mechanism. An additional electric motor is
controller designed. mounted at the aft of the center of gravity to provide an
additional vertical thrust in the vertical take-off and landing,
I. INTRODUCTION hover and transition to and from forward flight. This third
Vertical take-off and landing UAVs, in the form of motor also has a tilting capability around the body x-axis for
helicopters and multi-copters, have been utilized for many the yaw control using another servo motor. A high wing
applications. The helicopter type UAVs are good for hover, configuration is used and all avionics are placed under the
while multi-copters, offer simplicity in design and wing. Inverted V-tail is chosen to reduce the effects of the
development. However, these UAVs are not efficient in wake of the wings and the propellers. Aft propeller is not
forward flight. A tilt-rotor VTOL UAVs offer an alternate used in forward flight.
solution with vertical takeoff capability as well as long
endurance flight [1]. The aircraft configuration is shown in Figure 1. The aircraft
has the take-off mass of 3.4 kg and the maximum take-off
Previously, tilt-rotor VTOL air vehicle design was carried
mass is 3.79 kg maximum take-off weight. The main
out [1]. Flight controller for such an air vehicle was
proposed and success of such controllers for hover, transition specifications are listed in TABLE I. In this table, b,
and forward flight regimes were demonstrated through represents the span, S, is the planform area, 𝑐
simulations [2]. and 𝑐̅, are the chord and mean aerodynamic chord.
In this manuscript, a new tilt-rotor UAV with tri-copter
configuration developed at the Middle East Technical
University, Aerospace Engineering Department is presented.
The aircraft is based on a previous conventional aircraft
design [3]. For the UAV, proper mathematical models are
derived and used in the nonlinear simulation code developed.
Linear quadratic regulator and tracking linear quadratic
controller based attitude controllers are designed and tested
trough simulations. Vertical takeoff, hovering and landing
flight tests are also carried out.
In the following, VTOL UAV configuration is described. Figure 1. VTOL UAV
The mathematical model of the vehicle used in the nonlinear
simulations is given. The controller design and simulation III. DEVELOPMENT OF A NONLINEAR SIMULATION MODEL
results are presented together with hover mode flight test
A six degrees of freedom model with forces and moments
results. The manuscript ends with concluding remarks.
calculated from various subsystems models is implemented
in Matlab / Simulink environment. The subsystem models are
the propulsion model, aerodynamics model, and gravity
*This work is the result of the student projects supported by the Boeing
Company. models. A simple block diagram is given in Figure 2. The
A.S. Onen, L. Cevher, M. Senipek, T. Mutlu are graduate students, and gravity model uses WGS84 [4]. Propulsion and
O. Gungor, I. O. Uzunlar, are undergraduate students at the Middle East aerodynamics models are explained below.
Technical University, Aerospace Engineering Department, 006800 Ankara
Turkey.
D.F. Kurtulus is an Associate Professor in the same department (e-mail:
dfunda@ae.metu.edu.tr)
O. Tekinalp is a Professor also in the same department (e-mail:
tekinalp@metu.edu.tr).
 TABLE I. VTOL UAV SPECIFICATIONS [1] while the RPM values are recorded through the electronic
Wing Tail speed controller [7].
Incidance 1.0o Angle between V [°] 92.3
angle [°]
b [m] 1.5 b [m] 0.55
S [m2] 0.5 Tail Chord 0.148
Taper ratio 0.618 Moment arm [m] 0.96
c/4 sweep 0o Incidance angle [°] -1
[°]
Aspect 4.5 S [m2] 0.114
Ratio
croot [m] 0.414 Propulsion
ctip [m] 0.256 Electric Motor 3 x Axi
2826/10
𝐜̅ [m] 0.341 Propeller 11x4

Oswald’s 0.94 Weight [g] 181

efficiency
CD0 0.020 Sensors
Figure 3. Wind Tunnel in METU Aerospace Engineering Department
On-board Gyro / MPU
Computer Accelerometer 6000/6050
ArduPilot Mega 2560
Compass HMC5883L
microcontroller

Figure 4. Test Setup used in Wind Tunnel Tests

Figure 2. Simplified Flight Dynamics Block

A. Propulsion Model
The propulsion system model is based on a classical blade
element/vortex formulation. An open source code, QPROP
[5], is used to obtain the torque-thrust properties of the
propellers employed. For this, the geometry of the propellers,
the spin rate as well as the axial velocity the propellers face,
are used as inputs.
To verify the QPROP code and determine the 5 m/s wind speed
performance characteristics of the electric motor-propeller
combinations, wind tunnel tests are also performed in the (1m
× 1m) test section wind tunnel of the Aerospace Engineering
Department for different rotor spin axis angles (0○, 20○, 40○,
60○) and wind speeds (0, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30 m/s). The
wind tunnel and the test setup are shown in and Figure 3. and
Figure 4. respectively. Wind tunnel corrections are applied to
the velocity results obtained [6].
8 m/s and 12 m/s wind with 40o and 60o main rotor tilt
angles, since these corresponds to stall speeds mainly
encountered in the transition flight phase. A database is
created using the measurements of the thrust and torque
values at different RPMs, rotor angles and wind speeds. A 10 m/s wind speed
data acquisition system is used to record the load cell data Figure 5. Comparison of Thrust in QPROP with Experimental Data for 0○
degree tilt angle
 10 m/s wind speed
5 m/s wind speed

10 m/s wind speed 15 m/s wind speed

Figure 6. Comparison of Torque in QPROP with Experimental Data for 0○
tilt angle Figure 8. Comparison of Torque [Nm] in QPROP with Experimental Data
for 40○ tilt angle

The results of the wind tunnel tests are then compared

with those calculated with the QPROP. Thrust and torque as
a function of RPM 0o rotor tilt angle (indicating forward
flight configuration) and 40o rotor tilt angles at different wind
speeds are shown in figures 5-8 at different wind speeds. The
blue points in these figures correspond to the experimental
data and the green lines correspond to the blade element
code, QPROP solutions. From these figures it may be
concluded that the QPROP code predicts the torque and
thrust values quite closely.
Having verified the QPROP code experimentally, it is
10 m/s wind speed embedded into the nonlinear simulation to calculate the thrust
and torque generated by the propellers at the particular rotor
speed and axial wind velocity.
B. Aerodynamics Model
Aerodynamics model is obtained from the 3D panel
method solutions that are incompressible with viscous effects
neglected, which is encountered in low speed flows. The
approach is linear, and the superposition of several solutions
may be used. The general solution is found by distributing
source, doublet and vortex of unknown strength over
discretized portions of the panels, created by dividing
external surface of the geometry into smaller surfaces. The
unknown strengths of the sources, doublets and vortex are
15 m/s wind speed
found by solving a linear set of algebraic equations. An open
Figure 7. Comparison of Thrust [N] in QPROP with Experimental Data source 3D panel method code, XFLR5 [8], is used to obtain
for 40○ tilt angle
solutions over the air vehicle. 3D Panel Method analysis is
performed for the wing and tail separately, at different angles
of attack, angles of side slip, and control surface deflections.
It is assumed that the parameters do not change with the wind
speed. The parameters used in the analysis are listed in tables
3 and 4 for the wing and the tail respectively. A sample
solution for the wing and the tail are presented in figures 8
and 9 respectively.
Aerodynamic coefficients for the wing and tail, for
CL , CD , CY , Cl , Cm , Cn , are tabulated corresponding to
the input values given in tables 3 and 4. In the simulation,
these tables of aerodynamic coefficients are interpolated and Figure 10. The XFLR5 Solution for the Tail
forces and moments are calculated. For the wing, a three
dimensional interpolation table is used, whereas for the tail a TABLE IV. LIFT COEFFICIENT (CL) OF THE WING FOR DIFFERENT
four dimensional table is used since there is also the control ANGLES OF ATTACK AND SIDE-SLIP ANGLES AT 0 O AILERON DEFLECTION
surface deflection angle as well. In total, thirty six tables are
formed and part of the database is presented in tables 6-8. Side-slip angle (deg)
TABLE II. INPUT TO AERODYNAMIC DATABASE – WING

Parameter Inputs
Control Surface -20o < δaileron <20o

Angle of attack (deg)

Deflections (aileron) ∆δaileron =10o

Angle of attack -16o < α <16o

(deg) ∆α =2o
Beta -60 < β <60o
o

(deg) ∆β =30o

TABLE III. INPUTS TO AERODYNAMIC DATABASE – TAIL

Parameter Inputs
Control Surface -20o < δelev <20o TABLE V. PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENT (CM) OF THE TAIL FOR
Deflections ∆δelev =10o DIFFERENT ANGLES OF ATTACK AND ELEVATOR DEFLECTIONS
(elevator)
Control Surface -20o < δrudder<20o
Deflections (rudder) ∆δrudder=10o Control Surface Deflection (deg)
Angle of attack -16o <α <16o
(deg) ∆α =2o
Beta -60o < β <60o
(deg) ∆β =30o
Angle of attack (deg)

TABLE VI. LIFT COEFFICIENT (CL) OF THE TAIL FOR DIFFERENT

Figure 9. The XFLR5 Solution for the Wing ANGLES OF ATTACK AND ELEVATOR DEFLECTIONS

Control Surface Deflection (deg)
condition. Here, the maximum acceptable value for the states
are taken as 90 deg/sec for angular rates and 90○ for Euler
angles. The maximum value of the throttle inputs is taken as
40% and the angle as 90○ for aft motor tilt. State variable
feedback with reference Euler angle inputs may be written as,

𝑝̇
Angle of attack (deg)

𝑝 0
𝑞̇ 𝑞 0
𝑟̇ 𝑟 0 (3)
[𝐴 [𝐵𝐾] 𝜙
𝜙̇ = − 𝐵𝐾] 𝜙 + 𝑐𝑜𝑚
𝜃̇ 𝜃 𝜃𝑐𝑜𝑚
[𝜑̇ ] [ 𝜑] [𝜑𝑐𝑜𝑚 ]

Note that in the above equation, the vertical throttle is

applied separately and not in the feedback loop. The solution
of the algebraic Riccati equation given in Eqn. (4), and the
state feedback gain matrix is given in Eqn. (5), which is
IV. CONTROLLER DESIGN calculated using MATLAB.

A. Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

(4)
The air vehicle that is studied has mainly three flight 𝐴𝑇 𝑆 + 𝑆𝐴 − 𝑆𝐵𝑅−1 𝐵𝑇 𝑆 + 𝑄 = 0
phases: hover, transition from hover to forward flight and
forward flight. In all phases, the pilot can transmit commands (5)
to the air vehicle through the remote controller and the 𝐾 = 𝑅−1 𝐵𝑇 𝑆
autopilot algorithms in the microcontrollers should realize the
pilot’s commands. In this study, only the attitude control with
front propels fixed at 90○ (i.e. pointing up) is investigated.
In the hover case the pilot has four inputs on the remote
controller: throttle, pitch, roll and yaw inputs. Through the
throttle command stick the pilot can take-off, land, increase
or decrease the vehicle altitude. The roll, pitch and yaw of the
aircraft are being realized by the proper differential thrusts C. Linear Quadratic Tracking (LQT) Control
generated by the three propellers and by rolling the aft In LQT control, the cost function is the weighted sum of
propeller. Since, during hover the control surfaces are not the squares of errors and inputs as given as, [8]
effective and are not employed. The rotational dynamics
may be expressed as follows: ∞
1 (6)
𝐽 = ∫ (𝑒(𝑡)𝑇 𝑄𝑒(𝑡) + 𝑢(𝑡)𝑇 𝑅𝑢(𝑡)) 𝑑𝑡
𝑝̇ 2
𝑝 0
𝑞̇ 𝑞 δ𝑡ℎ1
𝑟̇ 𝑟 δ (1) where, e is the difference between the commands and the
[𝐴] 𝜙 + [𝐵] 𝑡ℎ2
𝜙̇ = δ𝑡ℎ3 commanded states, where they are the Euler angles in the
𝜃̇ 𝜃 [δ𝑎𝑓𝑡 ] vertical flight.
[𝜑̇ ] [𝜑] 𝑒 = 𝑧𝑐𝑜𝑚 − 𝐶𝑥
000100
(7)
𝐶 = [0 0 0 0 1 0]
B. Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) 000001
The optimal control where the system dynamics is linear
and the cost function is quadratic, givers the linear quadratic The weighting matrices in the cost function are again selected
regulator [9], which is the state variable feedback. The using Bryson’s approach. Then the state variable feedback
infinite horizon quadratic cost function may be written as: with reference Euler angle inputs may be written as,
∞
1 (2)
𝐽 = ∫ (𝑥(𝑡)𝑇 𝑄𝑥(𝑡) + 𝑢(𝑡)𝑇 𝑅𝑢(𝑡)) 𝑑𝑡
2
0
The weighting matrices in the cost function given in Eqn. (2)
are selected using Bryson’s approach [9] for hover flight
 𝑝̇ 𝑝 11-13). On the other hand, the responses display higher
𝑞̇ 𝑞 overshoot with washout.
𝑟 𝜙𝑐𝑜𝑚
𝑟̇ (8) 40
= [𝐴 − 𝐵𝐾] + [𝐵𝐾 ]
𝑧 𝜃𝑐𝑜𝑚 ]
[
𝜙̇ 𝜙 30
𝜃 𝜑𝑐𝑜𝑚 Roll Angle
𝜃̇

Phi (deg)
20 Roll Command
[𝜑̇ ] [𝜑]
10
Where, 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟 are the body angular rates, 𝜙, 𝜃, 𝜑 are the 0
Euler angles of the aircraft. For the tracking problem, a
-10
slightly different algebraic Riccati equation is used 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(Eqn.(9)).
Figure 11. Roll angle command and response without washout filters - LQR
(9)
𝐴𝑇 𝑆 + 𝑆𝐴 − 𝑆𝐵𝑅−1 𝐵𝑇 𝑆 + 𝐶 𝑇 𝑄𝐶 = 0
40

30
(10) Pitch Angle

Theta (deg)
−1 𝑇
𝐾=𝑅 𝐵 𝑆 20 Pitch Command

10

(11)
𝐾𝑧 = 𝑅−1 𝐵𝑇 [𝑆𝐵𝑅−1 𝐵𝑇 − 𝐵𝑇 ]−1 𝐶 𝑇 𝑄 0

-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
The gain matrices used are given below: Time (sec)

Figure 12. Pitch angle command and response without washout filters –
LQR

30

20
Psi (deg)

Yaw Angle
Yaw Command
10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
Figure 13. Yaw angle command and response without washout filters –
The designed linear controller is examined first through LQR
the simulation code. In order to observe the performance of
the controller, pilot commands and the air vehicles responses
in roll, pitch and yaw channels are given in this section. 40

30
The pilot commands are given as a pulse input of 30 Roll Angle
Phi (deg)

degree between 5-7 seconds time interval for roll, pitch and 20 Roll Command
yaw the Euler angles responses using linear quadratic 10
regulator controllers are presented in figures 11-13. 0

To avoid autopilot from fighting the pilot, washout filters -10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
are also used at the angular rate measurements with the linear Time (sec)
quadratic regulator. The washout filter used has the following Figure 14. Roll angle command and response with washout filters – LQR
form,
4𝑠 (12)
40
4𝑠 + 1
30
Pitch Angle
Theta (deg)

The filter is converted into discrete form using Tustin’s 20 Pitch Command
approximation [9] to implement in the microcontroller. The 10
results with washout filter are given in figures 14-16. 0
Comparing the results presented in the figures it may be
-10
concluded that in all cases, the response follows the 0 5 10 15
Time (sec)
20 25 30

command. However, results with washout filter is faster.

Figure 15. Pitch angle command and response with washout filters – LQR
For example the rise time is smaller with washout (figures
14-16) than the simulation results without washout (figures
 40 weight of the aircraft is not balanced by the thrust. The air
30 vehicle can move and rotate freely with the test setup within
Yaw Angle
the mechanical limits of the mechanism which lets one
Psi (deg)

20
10
0 bar may slide up (retract or shorten) as the vehicle lifts off.
-10
0 5 10 15
Time (sec)
Figure 16. Yaw angle command and response with washout – LQR
Simulations with LQT controller are also carried out. The
results are presented in figures 17-19. From these figures it
may be observed that in all channels, the aircraft is quite
fast. Thus, both the rise times and the over shoots
encountered are much smaller than the above controllers. In
fact with LQT, the system tracks the control inputs quite
closely.
In the next section flight test results are presented.
Yaw Command
investigate the rolling, pitching and yawing motion of the air
vehicle. When the vertical load on the bar is eliminated, the
20 25 30 To test the controller, a sufficient throttle is given to lift
the aircraft slightly. Then, the roll, pitch and yaw commands
are applied by the remote controller. Both the Euler angle
command and Euler angle responses measured by the IMU
on board, captured by the microcontroller, and transmitted to
the laptop used as the ground station through the telemetry
system. The results are presented in figures 21-23. LQR
controller in used in these hover tests presented. These tests
carried out in the laboratory shows that the system is
operating properly, and the commands are followed quite
closely.

40

30
Roll Angle
Phi (deg)

20 Roll Command

10

-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)

Figure 17. Roll angle command and response – LQT

Figure 20. Test Equipment

40

30
Theta (deg)

Pitch Angle
20 Pitch Command
40
10 Roll angle
Roll command
20
0
Phi (deg)

-10 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
-20
Figure 18. Pitch angle command and response - LQT
-40

40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
30
Yaw Angle
Figure 21. Roll command and roll response of the aircraft - LQR
Psi (deg)

20 Yaw Command

10 40
Pitch angle
0 Pitch command
20
Theta (deg)

-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0
Time (sec)

Figure 19. Yaw angle command and resonse – LQT -20

-40
VI. HOVER TEST RESULTS 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)

The hover tests are first carried out in the laboratory. The Figure 22. Pitch command and pitch response of the aircraft - LQR
test equipment is shown in Figure 20. , is composed of a
sliding bar attached to the ceiling of the test room at one end
and the center of gravity of the air vehicle at the other end.
Mechanism is simply working like a pendulum when the
 work is to develop control algorithms for going from vertical
40 take-off to forward flight and landing again back vertically.
20
Psi (deg)

0
40
-20

Phi (deg)
20
-40 Yaw angle
Yaw command
0
-60
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec) -20 Roll angle
Roll command
Figure 23. Yaw command and the yaw angle response of the aircraft - LQR 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (sec)

After verifying the controller with the pendulum

mechanism, actual flight tests are carried out. In the first Figure 24. Commanded and realized roll angles with LQR controller
flight tests LQR controller is used. The telemetry data without washout filter
recorded during these tests are presented in figures 24-26.
From these figures it may be observed that the aircraft is not
tracking the Euler angle commands as good as expected with 40 Pitch angle
LQR controller only. The pilot also complained that the 30 Pitch command

Theta (deg)
commands are not obeyed by the aircraft and there was 20
difficulty in steering the aircraft. 10

As a result of this initial test, washout filters are added to 0

the angular velocity measurements without changing the -10

feedback gains. These results are presented in figures 27-29. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

It may be observed from these results that the tracking of the Time (sec)

commands are much better with the washout filter.

Especially a very good tracking is observable in the yaw Figure 25. Commanded and realized pitch angles with LQR controller
channel (Figure 29. ) The pilot was much happier with the without washout filter
new autopilot’s performance, indicating that the aircraft was
quite agile.
15
Yaw angle
Final test employed the LQT controller. The test results Yaw command
10
with this controller are presented in figures 30-32. These
Psi (deg)

results show that the aircraft follows the commands. 5

However, in the roll and yaw channels, there is an offset 0

between the commands and the realized attitudes. However,
the tracking in the yaw channel is quite close. It should be -5

noted that, during the last flight test, the weather was quite 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
windy. Hence, the pilot was giving rapid commands to keep
the aircraft from drifting away, while in the yaw channel, the
pilot’s commands were much slower. Thus the controller did Figure 26. Commanded and realized yaw angles - LQR controller
not have time to respond to the commands, creating an offset
between the commands and the responses shown in the 20 Roll angle
figures. Roll command
10
Of these three controllers, LQT controller performed the
Phi (deg)

best. It was also easier to implement than an LQR with 0

washout filter in the autopilot [11]. Pictures from flight tests -10
are given in Figure 33.
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
VII. CONCLUSION Time (sec)

Figure 27. Commanded and realized roll angles - LQR controller with
In this study a nonlinear dynamic model is developed for washout filter
a tri-copter VTOL UAV. A linear quadratic regulators and
linear tracking controllers are designed to stabilize the
aircraft in the takeoff-hover-land flight phases. The success
of the designs are demonstrated through the nonlinear
simulations as well as the flight tests carried out.
A linear controller is being developed to control position
of the aircraft in the hover flight. The ultimate goal of this
 20
Pitch angle
10 Pitch command
Theta (deg)

-10

-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)

Figure 28. Commanded and realized pitch angles - LQR controller with
washout filter

40
Yaw angle
Yaw command
20
Psi (deg)

-20

0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (sec)

Figure 29. Commanded and realized yaw angles - LQR controller with
washout filter

20
Roll angle
Roll command
10
Phi (deg)

-10 Figure 33. Pictures from flight tests

-20

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (sec) REFERENCES
[1] Armutcuoglu, O, Kavsaoglu, M.S. and O. Tekinalp, “Tilt Duct
Figure 30. Commanded and realized roll angles with LQT controller Vertical Takeoff and Landing Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Concept
Design Study,” AIAA Journal of Aircraft, vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 215-223,
March-April 2004.
40 Pitch angle [2] Okan, A., Tekinalp, O., and M. Kavsaoglu, “Flight Control of a Tilt-
Pitch command
30
Duct UAV,” 1st International Conference on Unmanned Aerospace
Vehicles, AIAA-2002-3466, Portsmouth, Virginia, 20-23 May 2002.
Theta (deg)

20
[3] Şenipek M., Yayla M., Limon A.U., Rouzbar R., Yosheph Y., Kalkan
10 U., Şenol N., Akel E., Güngör O., Hoş B., Usta A., Uzunlar İ.Ö.,
0
Sarsılmaz S.B., Kurtuluş D.F.(2013), “Design Process of an UAV for
AIAA DBF 2013 Competition,” 7th Ankara International Aerospace
-10 Conference, Ankara, Turkey, 11-13 September 2013, Paper No.
0 10 20 30 40 50 AIAC-2013-105,.
Time (sec)
[4] Department of Defence World Geodetic System 1984. Available at:
Figure 31. Commanded and realized pitch angles with LQT controller http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/ publications/tr8350.2/ wgs84fin.pdf
[5] M. Drela and M. I. T. Aero & Astro, “QPROP Formulation” June,
2006. Avaliable at: http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/qprop/.
[6] Barlow, J., Rae, Jr., W., & Pope, A. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing
40 (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
30 [7] Önen A. S., Şenipek M., Mutlu T., Cevher L., Güngör O., Kurtuluş
Yaw angle
Yaw command Bozdemir D. F., Tekinalp O.. “The wind tunnel tests for the
20
propulsion system of a VTOL UAV”, HİTEK, Istanbul, Turkey, 18-19
Psi (deg)

10
June 2014.
0 [8] C. A. Deperrois, “About XFLR5 calculations and experimental
-10 measurements,” October, 2009, Available at:
-20 http://www.xflr5.com/docs/Results_vs_Prediction.pdf .
[9] D. G. Hull, Optimal Control Theory for Applications, Springer, 2003.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec) [10] Prach, A., Tekinalp, O., “Development of a State Dependent Riccati
Equation Based Trracking Flight Controller for an Unmanned
Figure 32. Commanded and realized yaw angles with LQT controller Aircraft,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference,
Boston, MA, 19-22 August 2013
[11] Önen, A.S., Modeling and Controller Design of a VTOL Air Vehicle,
M.S. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Department of
Aerospace Engineering, Ankara, Turkey, March 2015.

View publication stats