Design of A Simulation Tool For Aircraft Mission Performance Evaluation

AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference AIAA 2010-7777
2 - 5 August 2010, Toronto, Ontario Canada
Design of a Simulation Tool for Aircraft Mission

Performance Evaluation
Stephan Myschik1, Roland M. Leitner2

Industrieanlagen Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, 85521 Ottobrunn, Germany
and
Florian Holzapfel3
Institute of Flight System Dynamics, Technische Universität München, 85748 Garching, Germany
Downloaded by PURDUE UNIVERSITY on July 8, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2010-7777
This paper presents an approach for a simulation tool for aircraft mission performance
evaluation. It offers the possibility to perform parameter studies by flying a predefined
aircraft mission under varying conditions much faster than realtime. The simulation
framework includes a pilot model / moding logic combination modeling the different flight
phases, the pilots’ behavior and procedures to be performed. Moreover, models with
different levels of fidelity can be assessed due to the flexibility of the system. The
combination of logic and control elements is described in detail. Additionally, results from
simulation runs using a six degree of freedom model of a Generic Transport Aircraft are
presented in this paper to show the possibilities provided by the tool.
Introduction
S imulation nowadays is a common way to assess the dynamic behavior and performance of aircraft. Pilot-In-
The-Loop Simulations are often used to obtain an impression of the aircraft handling from the pilot’s point of
view. These simulations can be used to evaluate the aircraft’s performance flying a predefined mission in a more-or-
less static scenario.
However, as soon as statistical assessments of a certain parameter under varying conditions has to be conducted,
Pilot-In-The-Loop evaluations tend to be inexpedient due to the fact that flying a long mission in real-time is time
consuming. This is especially the case when variations of several parameters have to be performed. Moreover,
reproducible conditions in two evaluation runs cannot be guaranteed, as the pilots’ behavior might change from one
mission set to another.
A mathematical representation of the pilot which performs all the necessary steps to fly a predefined mission is a
possible solution to this problem. It can be used to evaluate the aircraft mission performance under varying
conditions much faster than real-time while guaranteeing a reproducible performance of the pilot.
This paper presents the design and implementation of such a simulation tool which is used at IABG mbH to
assess the performance of different types of aircraft.
In the first section of this paper, the overall structure of the simulation framework will be presented. Afterwards,
the simulation model of the aircraft used in the evaluation runs is briefly described. In a next step, the components of
the aircraft mission simulation are introduced, including the moding logics and the control-algorithms used to
perform the mission task. The paper concludes with the presentation of simulation results obtained while performing
an example mission.
1
Dipl. Ing. Stephan Myschik, Researcher, IABG mbh, Einsteinstr. 20, D-85521 Ottobrunn, Germany.
Member AIAA.
2
Dipl. Ing. Roland M. Leitner, Researcher, IABG mbh, Einsteinstr. 20, D-85521 Ottobrunn, Germany
Member AIAA
3
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Florian Holzapfel, Director, Institute of Flight System Dynamics,
Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany.
Senior Member AIAA
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2010 by IABG mbH, Ottobrunn, Germany. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
System structure
The structure of the simulation framework used for mission performance analysis is depicted in Fig. 1. It consists
of several components with the main element being the simulation model of the aircraft to be investigated.
Simulation models of different levels of fidelity, ranging from three (3DoF) to six degrees of freedom (6DoF) can be
used in this framework. Results from the simulation can either be visualized in real-time using a 3D dynamic
visualization environment or post-processed with adequate algorithms in MATLAB. Moreover, information from
the simulation can be published via network (DIS / HLA) to participate in distributed simulation networks.
Information about the environment (terrain elevation, wind conditions, navigation data (VOR, DME, GS)) are
provided to the simulation model depending on the aircrafts position.
The configuration of the aircraft, e. g. weight and balance, fuel system, initial conditions, can be set using a
control panel or an XML-file.
For manned simulations, a fixed-base simulator cockpit with all relevant control elements can be used to fly the
aircraft. In the other operating mode, which is subject of this paper, the aircraft is controlled using a mathematical
representation of the pilot. This pilot model performs the necessary control inputs depending on the actual flight-
phase and the aircraft state to fulfill a mission defined in an XML-File.

This mission file contains information about the different flight phases, waypoints, actions at waypoints and
transition conditions as well as aircraft specific parameter (e. g. decision speeds, etc). Currently, the XML structure
is proprietary but it is planned to adapt it to a common format (e. g. CRD).
The pilot model / moding logic combination as shown in Fig. 2, is realized using SIMULINK for the control
algorithms and a STATEFLOW component, which selects the appropriate control algorithm for the actual mission
task.
In order to consider human imperfections, lag terms can be included in the controller representing the human
reaction time and neuromuscular time-delay. A more detailed description will be presented later in this text.
Using this approach, it is possible to assess the aircraft performance performing a pre-defined mission task while
varying different aircraft parameters (e. g. Cargo/Fuel apportionment, etc.) as well as environmental settings (e. g.
wind situations, etc.). As no human pilot is required to fly the mission, the evaluation can be done much faster than
real-time on a server cluster.
Generic Transport Aircraft Simulation Model

In this section, the model of the aircraft used in combination with the automated mission performance analysis
tool is briefly described.
The model under investigation is a high fidelity 6DoF model of a Generic Transport Aircraft whose components
are modeled using MATLAB/Simulink (Ref. [1]). Fig. 3 depicts the components of the simulation model and the
way, the components are realized. With the generic model frame it is intended to simulate civil and military
transport aircraft.
The modeled aircraft is driven by four turboprop engines with oppositely rotating propellers on each wing. The
aircraft is equipped with a landing gear that allows operation on short, unpaved runways. The cargo compartment is
accessible via a large cargo ramp that is also suitable for cargo airdrops during flight.
The aircraft is modeled as rigid body, where aeroelastic deformations are not considered. The implemented
equations of motion cover all six spatial degrees of freedom. The aircraft’s system behavior is uniquely represented
by twelve states: three WGS84 position states, three velocity states, attitude states (Euler angles / quaternions) and
three angular rate states. The ordinary differential equations are solved with the fixed time-step Runge-Kutta
integration method.
Forces and moments are supplied by the aerodynamics module. It interpolates aerodynamic coefficients and
derivatives from look-up tables according to the flow relative to the rigid aircraft body and the current aircraft
configuration and provides the aerodynamic forces and moments that act on the aerodynamic reference point A.
Amongst others, the influence of flaps, speed-brakes and roll spoilers as well as the influence of the propeller
slipstream on lift and rolling moment are considered. Furthermore, the diminution of the angle of attack at the
horizontal tail by the induced downwash of the upstream located wing is represented.
Important subsystems of the transport aircraft like avionics, control surface actuators, landing gear, propulsion and
sensors (to announce a few) are modeled by physically detailed subordinate models.
In particular, the model of the transport aircraft is equipped with a complex propulsion chain model. Each
propulsion chain consists of a quasi-steady engine model that interpolates engine parameters (propeller shaft power,
2
thrust, consumed fuel mass flow, etc.) from look-up tables according to the throttle setting and the flight condition.
A propeller model that interpolates force and moment coefficients from look-up tables whose values were
previously calculated by means of the propeller blade element theory is also part of the propulsion chain. A FADEC
model that controls the rotational speed of the propeller by adjusting the propeller blade pitch angle and that
introduces artificial engine dynamics contributes to the complexity of the simulation model. Via the gearbox
dynamical balance between the power provided by the engine on the one hand and the power consumed by the
propeller on the other hand is established. If the delivered power does not correspond to the expended power, the
propeller accelerates or decelerates, respectively.
Another important part of the aircraft is the landing gear model, which incorporates multi body system dynamics
(see Ref. [2]). Each landing gear leg is modeled as Multi-Body-System whose equations of motion are derived by
means of the constrained Newton-Euler procedure. The landing gear legs consist of a shock absorber and two
independently rotating wheels. Each of the bodies is afflicted with mass and inertia. The shock absorber is
suspended at the fuselage. One landing gear leg incorporates four degrees of freedom: a translatory one due to shock
absorber compression, two rotatory ones due to the independently rotating wheels and a rotatory degree of freedom
due to the rotation of the leg around the suspension point. Since tire friction is modeled, it is possible to represent the
spin-up of the tires at touch down during landing. The nose landing gear can be steered. The main landing gear
wheels can be braked. The model computes the reaction forces and moments that are transmitted from ground to
fuselage by the landing gear.
The weight and balance module considers masses and moments of inertia of passengers, payload and fuel.
Passengers can be arbitrarily seated in the passenger cabin. Payload can move in the cargo compartment during
flight and can be even airdropped. All fuel tanks that can be typically found in a transport aircraft (wing, center,
feeder tanks, etc.) are represented. With a comfortable fuel management tool the initial fill levels can be set. Fuel is
disposed between the tanks using a realistic logic and the fuel mass is reduced by the consumption of the engines.
The control surface actuators whose dynamical transmission is modeled by PT 2 transfer functions.
The Sensor models contain amongst others an air data system, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a GPS
navigation satellite receiver.
The high fidelity FCS model is based upon the controller structure of modern jets. Alternatively, simpler
approaches can be implemented to investigate and assess basic control and stability augmentation procedures (see
Refs. [3], [4]).
The model of a Generic Transport Aircraft is completed by the detailed representation of the environment. The
static temperature, pressure and density of the atmosphere are modeled according to the norm DIN ISO 2533.
Additionally, dynamic effects like turbulence or shear wind fields are considered. Turbulence is depicted by
Dryden’s or von Kármán’s turbulence models. The earth is represented as a WGS84 ellipsoid and the gravity model
includes geoid undulations that are captured by the EGM96 description (Refs [5] - [10]).
The established simulation model of the Generic Transport Aircraft is suitable for time-domain simulation (real-
time or faster), single point execution, linearization and gradient computation.
Aircraft Mission Simulation
This section presents the concept and realization of the aircraft mission simulation for performance evaluation by
describing the pilot model / moding logics as shown in Fig. 2.
A. Flight Phases
This paragraph provides an overview of the main flight phases of a standard flight mission, based on the
definitions given in [11], [12] and [13]. In Fig. 4 a typical sequence of such a mission is depicted. In addition to the
flight-phases shown, more phases can be defined depending on the type of mission. Different flight-phases can be
separated into several sub-phases, which can be entered alternatively, sequentially or in parallel.
A mission typically starts with the aircraft taxiing from the parking position to the runway (TXY). Having
arrived at the runway, the take-off phase begins - the aircraft accelerates from standstill to a speed at which the
3
aircraft is able to lift-off. With the lift-off of the aircraft, the departure phase (DEP) begins. In this phase, the aircraft
configuration is modified from take-off to clean and the initial climb is performed.
Both phases (T/O and DEP) are divided into sub-elements which are separated by clearly defined decision
speeds (e. g. V1, V2, VRotate) and altitudes. If a critical event occurs (e. g. engine failure), the mission is aborted and
the rejected take-off phase (RTO) is entered.
Following a successful takeoff and departure, the mission proceeds to the climb phase (CLB), in which the pilot
climbs to a designated cruising altitude.
Having reached the cruising altitude, the mission commences with cruise phase (CRS), the phase in which the
aircraft covers the largest part of the distance. In descent phase (DES) the altitude of the aircraft is reduced to a
different, lower flight level. The phases CLB; CRS and DES are often summarized as en-route phases as climb,
cruise and descent cannot be strictly separated. During a mission, several climb, cruise and descent phases follow
consecutively depending on environmental conditions and mission requirements.
During the approach phase (APP), the aircraft approaches the destination airport by acquiring the runway course
and the glide slope given by the air traffic control. Moreover, the configuration of the aircraft is modified from clean
to landing.
In the landing phase (LDG), the aircraft is safely brought back to ground, stabilized and decelerated to taxi
speed. Finally, the aircraft is taxied to its designated gate (TXY).

If it is not possible to land the aircraft safely, the landing is aborted (missed approach) and the pilot performs a
go-around maneuver (M/A). In this case, the approach is either repeated at the same airport or the aircraft is flown to
a different landing site.
The moding logic presented in this paper contains the flight phases described above modeled in a state-machine.
Fig. 5 presents the corresponding STATEFLOW chart of the different flight phases.
Transitions between the mission phases are performed, as soon as requirements specified in checklists are
fulfilled. Fig. 6 displays the elements of the take-off phase, beginning with the take-off run, where the aircraft
accelerates until achieving rotation speed. Having reached this speed, the aircraft rotates. The rotation phase ends as
soon as the lift-off speed is reached and the landing gear loses ground-contact.
B. Checklists
The transition conditions, which have to be fulfilled, are stored in checklists, as presented in Fig. 7. The ones
shown here cover the transitions from take-off run to lift-off and further on to transition flight.
In order to proceed from take-off run to the lift-off phase, the indicated airspeed has to match or exceed the
required rotational speed (VRotate), which is depending on the aircraft type as shown in the upper half of the diagram.
In this case, the return value of the function RET_v_rotate is 1 and the next phase is initiated.
The requirements to switch to the transition flight phase are shown in the lower half of the diagram of Fig. 7. The
return value of the function is 1 as soon as the indicated airspeed exceeds the lift-off speed and the landing gear
loses ground-contact.
Checklists, as shown in Fig. 7, are used throughout the STATEFLOW component to perform transitions from
one (sub-)phase of the mission to another.
C. Flight Modes and Procedures
During each phase of an aircraft mission, the pilot has to perform certain steps to fulfill the required tasks. These
steps are modeled as procedures, describing the actions the pilot has to perform. Procedures activate different modes
of the pilot/controller model used to fly the aircraft.
Fig. 8 shows the different top-level flight modes, so called super-modes, which are all parallel and always active.
Directly related to the control surfaces of the aircraft are the modes grouped in the box labeled “Aircraft Controls”
(CTRL). The sub-modes of the CTRL super-mode decide whether the aircraft controls are receiving commands
directly from the pilot (e. g. a fixed throttle setting) or from a controller of the pilot model (e. g. the controlling the
a/c speed by throttle setting).
The inner modes (INN) are modifying the dynamics of the aircraft to improve handling qualities and are split
into pitch- (PM), roll- (RM) and directional modes (LM). All modes leave high authority to the pilot model.
The speed mode (SPD) controls the speed of the aircraft either by varying the throttle setting or its pitch attitude.
4
Modes controlling the horizontal motion of the aircraft are combined in the super-mode HP. Included are
navigation modes (NAV) providing functionalities for navigation in the horizontal plane, path modes (PATH)
modifying the flight path of the aircraft in the horizontal plane and attitude modes (ATT), controlling the attitude of
the aircraft in the horizontal plane. The same holds for the modes controlling the vertical motion of the aircraft
(super-mode VP).
Fig. 9 depicts the sub-modes of the SPD super-mode, dealing with the control of the aircraft speed either by
changing the throttle setting (THR) or the pitch attitude of the aircraft (PITCH). In contrast to super-modes, only one
sub-mode can be active at a time. Depending on the mode selected during the mission, different control algorithms
are activated in the pilot model for controlling the thrust lever. Moreover, the super-mode can be set to the state
“OFF” providing the possibility to send a command directly to the throttle. The same principle also holds for the
other super-modes shown in the figure.
Fig. 10 displays the procedure modeling the pilot performing the take-off run after having taxied to the runway.
In a first step, for the thrust control a direct command mode is selected. Afterwards the thrust lever is set to the value
representing TOGA setting. Moreover, the elevator control is also set to a direct command mode and a deflection of
zero degrees is commanded.
In order to keep the aircraft on the runway during the take-off run, the NAV mode is activated and the
commanded course is set to the runway direction. With the aircraft being on the ground, its direction is controlled by
the front-wheel steering with the appropriate controller is activated. During the take-off run, the gear lever is kept in
the gear-down position, the brakes are released and the flaps are set to take-off position.
D. Pilot Model / Control Algorithms
In addition to the state machine providing the logics part, algorithms for controlling the aircraft during the
mission form the other core element of the pilot model / moding logics as shown in Fig. 2.
The structure of the control system is depicted in Fig. 11. Its inner-loop controllers modify the inherent dynamics
of the aircraft. In combination with the current simulation model, however, which already includes a fly-by-wire
flight control system, the inner-loop controllers are deactivated. Flaps are directly controlled by the moding logics.
While the aircraft is maneuvering on the ground, the actual course is controlled by the front-wheel steering (and
the rudder). This controller is deactivated, when the aircraft has performed the take-off.
The thrust of the aircraft is either commanded directly by the moding logic or is set by the thrust control system.
This controller represents the pilots’ behavior when controlling the aircraft’s speed by setting the thrust lever to an
appropriate value.
The spatial orientation of the aircraft is controlled by the attitude control system. Command values are either
provided by the moding logics component – e. g. a defined pitch angle during take-off – or are calculated by the path
controller.
The latter controls the flight path of the aircraft during the mission. Required flight path angles and velocities are
either commanded directly or provided by the trajectory controller, which tries to minimize the deviation of the
aircraft from a reference trajectory.
This reference trajectory is calculated by the navigation computer using navigation aids defined for each mission
segment.
E. Mission File
Parameters concerning the mission are stored in an XML file format, which can be modified for each simulation
run. It contains information concerning each flight phase and also relevant aircraft parameters. Actions during
mission segments can also be specified. The file is interpreted with an XML interpreter contained in an s-function,
providing the required data to the moding logics.
Results
A. Example Mission
In this section results for an example mission obtained using the aircraft mission simulation are presented. The
mission consists of the typical nominal flight phases and describes a flight from Cologne to Munich airport,
5
performing different waypoint navigation during the en-route phases including several climb, descent and cruise
segments.
In Fig. 12 a two-dimensional view of the mission setup is presented. In this case, only VOR/NDB/DME
navigation is considered, as the system is still under development.
WP Speed Flight Level VOR Mode

1 130 m/s FL 50 Homing
2 0.4 Ma FL 230 Tracking 148°
3 0.4 Ma FL 230 Tracking 124°
9 125 m/s FL 120 Tracking 185°

10 125 m/s FL 120 Tracking 89°
11 115 m/s FL 120 Tracking 202°
Table 1. Mission Setup
Tab.1 shows the different waypoints, speeds navigation modes and altitudes setting up the mission to be flown.
In Fig. 13 the results of the simulation run are shown. It can be seen, that the waypoints defined in the mission setup
are reached. The flight time is calculated being 1h 18 mins, whereas the computation time did not exceed 5 minutes.
B. Take-Off Distance Determination
The automatic mission simulation provides the possibility to investigate the aircraft performance under varying
conditions and configurations. In Fig. 14 results for the determination of the take-off run are presented for different
weights of the aircraft.
Accelerating from the initial position, the pilot initiates the rotation at a velocity of 140 m/s. The simulation run
ends, as soon as the aircraft gains an altitude of 35 m above ground.
As expected, the take-off distance of the aircraft increases with increasing weight from 972 m (89 to) to 1367 m
(124 to). The markers in Fig. 13 indicate the moment, when the main landing gear lifts off.
The computation of the simulation runs took no more than 2 minutes.
Conclusions and Outlook
In this paper, a simulation environment for assessing the performance of an aircraft while performing a
predefined mission task is presented. The main components of this framework being the simulation model at
different levels of fidelity and the mathematical representation of the pilot are described in detail.
The latter is comprised of a control system operating the necessary aircraft controls to perform the desired
actions and a state machine, selecting the appropriate controller depending on the current flight phase. This logics
part is modeled in STATEFLOW including the different flight phases as well as the flight modes.
Results presented for an example mission show, that the system is capable of providing the desired
functionalities. As the system is still under development, procedures, checklists and control algorithms for flight-
conditions leading to emergency flight-phases will be implemented in the coming month. Moreover, an adaptation
of the XML mission file towards a more common format (e. g. CRD, ARINC 424) is under consideration.
6
References
[1] BRAUN, B., ”Level 3 Transport Frame Documentation”, IABG Technical Report, IABG mbH, Ottobrunn,
April 2007
[2] HOLZAPFEL, F., LEITNER, R., SACHS, G., ”High Fidelity Landing Gear Modeling for Real-Time
Simulation”, AIAA-2006-6820, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit,
Keystone, Colorado, Aug. 21-24, 2006
[3] HOLZAPFEL, F. et al., ”Development of a Lateral-Directional Flight Control System for a New Transport
Aircraft”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 21-24 August 2006
[4] HOLZAPFEL, F. et al., ”Development of a Longitudinal Flight Control System for a New Transport
Aircraft”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 21-24 August 2006
[5] LEITNER, R., “Static Atmosphere Documentation”, IABG Technical Report, IABG mbH, Ottobrunn, March
2005.
[6] Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.: Normatmosphäre ISO 2533. Teil 1. December 1979
[7] MJ MAHONEY: “A Discussion of Various Measures of Height”, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 22 October ,
2001.
[8] INGO BIEGELMEIER: “Earth Gravity”, IABG Technical Report, IABG mbH, Ottobrunn, IABG mbH
Ottobrunn, April 2004.
[9] NIMA & DEPARTEMENT OF DEFENSE: “World Geodetic System 1994.”, Technical Report TR-8350.2, 3rd
Edition, Amendment 1, 3 January 2000.
[10] NGA/NASA EGM96, “N=M=360 Earth Gravity Model” (March 2005)
[11] HÜBNER, M., “Development of Supervisory Moding Logics for Autonomous Flight Mission
Accomplishment”, Diploma Thesis / IABG Technical Report, IABG mbH, Ottobrunn, December 2006
[12] EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY, “Certification Specifications For Large Aeroplanes”, CS-25 EASA,
December 2005
[13] JAN ROSKAM, “Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance Design”, Analysis and Research Corporation
(DARcorporation) Lawrence, Kansas 66044, 1997
7
Figure 1. Simulation Framework Structure
Figure 2. Pilot Model / Moding Logic Structure
8
Figure 3. Generic Transport Aircraft Simulation Model
En-Route Phases
Taxi Take-Off Departure/ Climb Cruise Descent Approach Landing Taxi

Initial
(TXY) (T/O) (CLB) (CRS) (DES) (APP) (LDG) (TXY)
Climb
(DEP)
Rejected Take-Off (RTO) Missed Approach (M/A)

Figure 4. Standard Flight Phases
Figure 5. Implementation of Flight Phases in STATEFLOW

9
Figure 6. Take-Off Phase
Figure 7. Checklists for Rotation and Lift-Off Decision
10
11
Figure 8:Flight Modes

Figure 9. Flight Modes - SPD sub-mode
Figure 10: Procedures during Take-Off Run

12
Figure 11. Controller Structure
Figure 12. Example Mission
13
Figure 13. Example Mission Simulation Results
Figure 14. Take-Off Run Evaluation (Mass Variation)
14

Design of A Simulation Tool For Aircraft Mission Performance Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Design of A Simulation Tool For Aircraft Mission Performance Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of A Simulation Tool For Aircraft Mission Performance Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference AIAA 2010-7777

2 - 5 August 2010, Toronto, Ontario Canada

Design of a Simulation Tool for Aircraft Mission

Stephan Myschik1, Roland M. Leitner2

phase and the aircraft state to fulfill a mission defined in an XML-File.

Generic Transport Aircraft Simulation Model

Aircraft Mission Simulation

speed. Finally, the aircraft is taxied to its designated gate (TXY).

C. Flight Modes and Procedures

D. Pilot Model / Control Algorithms

WP Speed Flight Level VOR Mode

9 125 m/s FL 120 Tracking 185°

Table 1. Mission Setup

B. Take-Off Distance Determination

Conclusions and Outlook

Figure 1. Simulation Framework Structure

Figure 2. Pilot Model / Moding Logic Structure

Figure 3. Generic Transport Aircraft Simulation Model

Taxi Take-Off Departure/ Climb Cruise Descent Approach Landing Taxi

Rejected Take-Off (RTO) Missed Approach (M/A)

Figure 5. Implementation of Flight Phases in STATEFLOW

Figure 6. Take-Off Phase

Figure 7. Checklists for Rotation and Lift-Off Decision

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 9. Flight Modes - SPD sub-mode

Figure 10: Procedures during Take-Off Run

Figure 11. Controller Structure

Figure 12. Example Mission

Figure 13. Example Mission Simulation Results

Figure 14. Take-Off Run Evaluation (Mass Variation)

You might also like