You are on page 1of 36

Aircraft control system

Aircraft flight control system

A typical aircraft's primary flight controls in motion

A conventional fixed-wing aircraft flight control system consists of flight control surfaces, the
respective cockpit controls, connecting linkages, and the necessary operating mechanisms to
control an aircraft's direction in flight. Aircraft engine controls are also considered as flight
controls as they change speed.

The fundamentals of aircraft controls are explained in flight dynamics. This article centers on the
operating mechanisms of the flight controls.

Contents
1 Cockpit controls
o 1.1 Primary controls

o 1.2 Secondary controls

2 Flight control systems

o 2.1 Mechanical

o 2.2 Hydro-mechanical

2.2.1 Artificial feel devices

2.2.2 Stick shaker

o 2.3 Fly-by-wire control systems

3 Research

35
o 3.1 Flexible wings

o 3.2 Fluidics

Cockpit controls
Primary controls

Generally the primary cockpit controls are arranged as follows:

A control column or a control yoke attached to a columnfor roll and pitch, which
moves the ailerons when turned or deflected left and right, and moves the elevators when
moved backwards or forwards
Rudder pedals, or the earlier, pre-1919 "rudder bar", to control yaw, which move the
rudder; left foot forward will move the rudder left for instance.
Throttle controls to control engine speed or thrust for powered aircraft.

Even when an aircraft uses different kinds of surfaces, such as a V-tail/ruddervator, flaperons, or
elevons, to avoid pilot confusion the aircraft will still normally be designed so that the yoke or
stick controls pitch and roll in the conventional way, as will the rudder pedals for yaw. The basic
pattern for modern flight controls was pioneered by French aviation figure Robert Esnault-
Pelterie, with fellow French aviator Louis Blriot popularizing Esnault-Pelterie's control format
initially on Louis' Blriot VIII monoplane, and standardizing the format on the July 1909
Channel-crossing Blriot XI.

Secondary controls

In addition to the primary flight controls for roll, pitch, and yaw, there are often secondary
controls available to give the pilot finer control over flight or to ease the workload. The most
commonly-available control is a wheel or other device to control elevator trim, so that the pilot
does not have to maintain constant backward or forward pressure to hold a specific pitch attitude
other types of trim, for rudder and ailerons, are common on larger aircraft but may also appear
on smaller ones). Many aircraft have wing flaps, controlled by a switch or a mechanical lever or
in some cases are fully automatic by computer control, which alter the shape of the wing for
improved control at the slower speeds used for takeoff and landing. Other secondary flight
control systems may be available, including slats, spoilers, air brakes and variable-sweep wings.

35
Flight control systems
Mechanical

de Havilland Tiger Moth elevator and rudder cables

Mechanical or manually-operated flight control systems are the most basic method of controlling
an aircraft. They were used in early aircraft and are currently used in small aircraft where the
aerodynamic forces are not excessive. Very early aircraft, such as the Wright Flyer I, Blriot XI
and Fokker Eindecker used a system of wing warping where no conventionally hinged control
surfaces were used on the wing, and sometimes not even for pitch control as on the Wright Flyer
I and original versions of the 1909 Etrich Taube, which only had a hinged/pivoting rudder in
addition to the warping-operated pitch and roll controls.[2] A manual flight control system uses a
collection of mechanical parts such as pushrods, tension cables, pulleys, counterweights, and
sometimes chains to transmit the forces applied to the cockpit controls directly to the control
surfaces. Turnbuckles are often used to adjust control cable tension. The Cessna Skyhawk is a
typical example of an aircraft that uses this type of system. Gust locks are often used on parked
aircraft with mechanical systems to protect the control surfaces and linkages from damage from
wind. Some aircraft have gust locks fitted as part of the control system.

Increases in the control surface area required by large aircraft or higher loads caused by high
airspeeds in small aircraft lead to a large increase in the forces needed to move them,
consequently complicated mechanical gearing arrangements were developed to extract maximum
mechanical advantage in order to reduce the forces required from the pilots. [ This arrangement
can be found on bigger or higher performance propeller aircraft such as the Fokker 50.

Some mechanical flight control systems use servo tabs that provide aerodynamic assistance.
Servo tabs are small surfaces hinged to the control surfaces. The flight control mechanisms move

35
these tabs, aerodynamic forces in turn move, or assist the movement of the control surfaces
reducing the amount of mechanical forces needed. This arrangement was used in early piston-
engined transport aircraft and in early jet transports.The Boeing 737 incorporates a system,
whereby in the unlikely event of total hydraulic system failure, it automatically and seamlessly
reverts to being controlled via servo-tab

Hydro-mechanical

The complexity and weight of mechanical flight control systems increase considerably with the
size and performance of the aircraft. Hydraulically powered control surfaces help to overcome
these limitations. With hydraulic flight control systems, the aircraft's size and performance are
limited by economics rather than a pilot's muscular strength. At first, only-partially boosted
systems were used in which the pilot could still feel some of the aerodynamic loads on the
control surfaces (feedback).

A hydro-mechanical flight control system has two parts:

The mechanical circuit, which links the cockpit controls with the hydraulic circuits. Like
the mechanical flight control system, it consists of rods, cables, pulleys, and sometimes
chains.

The hydraulic circuit, which has hydraulic pumps, reservoirs, filters, pipes, valves and
actuators. The actuators are powered by the hydraulic pressure generated by the pumps in
the hydraulic circuit. The actuators convert hydraulic pressure into control surface
movements. The electro-hydraulic servo valves control the movement of the actuators.

The pilot's movement of a control causes the mechanical circuit to open the matching servo valve
in the hydraulic circuit. The hydraulic circuit powers the actuators which then move the control
surfaces. As the actuator moves, the servo valve is closed by a mechanical feedback linkage - one
that stops movement of the control surface at the desired position.

This arrangement was found in the older-designed jet transports and in some high-performance
aircraft. Examples include the Antonov An-225 and the Lockheed SR-71.

Artificial feel devices

With purely mechanical flight control systems, the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces
are transmitted through the mechanisms and are felt directly by the pilot. This gives tactile
feedback of airspeed and aids flight safety.[citation needed]

With hydromechanical flight control systems however, the load on the surfaces cannot be felt and
there is a risk of overstressing the aircraft through excessive control surface movement. To
overcome this problem artificial feel systems are used. For example, for the controls of the
RAF's Avro Vulcan jet bomber and the RCAF's Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow supersonic

35
interceptor, both 1950's-era designs, the required force feedback was achieved by a spring
device.[6] The fulcrum of this device was moved in proportion to the square of the air speed (for
the elevators) to give increased resistance at higher speeds. For the controls of the American
Vought F-8 Crusader and the LTV A-7 Corsair II warplanes, a "bob-weight" was used in the
pitch axis of the control stick, giving force feedback that was proportional to the airplane's
normal acceleration.[citation needed]

Stick shaker

A stick shaker is a device (available in some hydraulic aircraft) which is fitted into the control
column which shakes the control column when the aircraft is about to stall. Also in some aircraft
like the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 there is/was a back-up electrical power supply which the
pilot can turn on to re-activate the stick shaker in case the hydraulic connection to the stick
shaker is lost.[citation needed]

Fly-by-wire control systems

A fly-by-wire (FBW) system replaces manual flight control of an aircraft with an electronic
interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by
wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the
actuators at each control surface to provide the expected response. Commands from the
computers are also input without the pilot's knowledge to stabilize the aircraft and perform other
tasks.

Research
Several technology research and development efforts exist to integrate the functions of flight
control systems such as ailerons, elevators, elevons and flaps, into wings to perform the
aerodynamic purpose with the advantages of less: mass, cost, drag, inertia (for faster, stronger
control response), complexity (mechanically simpler, fewer moving parts or surfaces, less
maintenance), and radar cross section for stealth. These may be used in many unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) and 6th generation fighter aircraft. The two main approaches are flexible wings,
and fluidics.

Flexible wings

In flexible wings, much or all of a wing surface can change shape in flight to deflect air flow.
The X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing is a NASA effort. The Adaptive Compliant Wing is a
commercial effort.

Fluidics

35
In fluidics, forces in vehicles occur via circulation control, in which larger more complex
mechanical parts are replaced by smaller simpler fluidic systems (slots which emit air flows)
where larger forces in fluids are diverted by smaller jets or flows of fluid intermittently, to
change the direction of vehicles. In this use, fluidics promises lower mass, costs (up to 50% less),
and very low inertia and response times, and simplicity. This was demonstrated in the Demon
UAV which flew for the first time, in the UK, in September 2010.

Dutch roll

Dutch roll is a type of aircraft motion, consisting of an out-of-phase combination of "tail-


wagging" and rocking from side to side. This yaw-roll coupling is one of the basic flight
dynamic modes (others include phugoid, short period, and spiral divergence). This motion is
normally well damped in most light aircraft, though some aircraft with well-damped Dutch roll
modes can experience a degradation in damping as airspeed decreases and altitude increases.
Dutch roll stability can be artificially increased by the installation of a yaw damper. Wings
placed well above the center of mass, sweepback (swept wings) and dihedral wings tend to
increase the roll restoring force, and therefore increase the Dutch roll tendencies; this is why
high-winged aircraft often are slightly anhedral, and transport category swept wing aircraft are
equipped with yaw dampers.In aircraft design, Dutch roll results from relatively weaker positive
directional stability as opposed to positive lateral stability. When an aircraft rolls around the
longitudinal axis, a sideslip is introduced into the relative wind in the direction of the rolling
motion. Strong lateral stability begins to restore the aircraft to level flight. At the same time,

35
somewhat weaker directional stability attempts to correct the sideslip by aligning the aircraft
with the perceived relative wind. Since directional stability is weaker than lateral stability for the
particular aircraft, the restoring yaw motion lags significantly behind the restoring roll motion.
As such, the aircraft passes through level flight as the yawing motion is continuing in the
direction of the original roll. At that point, the sideslip is introduced in the opposite direction and
the process is reversed. The Dutch roll mode can be excited by any use of aileron or rudder, but
for flight test purposes it is usually excited with a rudder singlet (short, sharp motions of the
rudder to a specified angle, and then back to the centered position) or doublet (a pair of such
motions in opposite directions). Some larger aircraft are better excited with aileron inputs.
Periods can range from a few seconds for light aircraft to a minute or more for airliners. Dutch
roll is also the name (considered by professionals to be a misnomer) given to a coordination
maneuver generally taught to student pilots to help them improve their "stick-and-rudder"
technique. The aircraft is alternately rolled as much as 60 degrees left and right while rudder is
applied to keep the nose of the aircraft pointed at a fixed point.

This coordination technique is better referred to as "rolling on a heading", where the aircraft is
rolled in such a way as to maintain an accurate heading without the nose moving from side-to-
side (or yawing). The yaw motion is induced through the use of ailerons alone due to aileron
drag where the lifting wing (aileron down) is doing more work than the descending wing (aileron
up) and therefore creates more drag, forcing the lifting wing back, yawing the aircraft toward it.
This yawing effect produced by rolling motion is known as adverse yaw. This has to be
countered precisely by application of rudder in the same direction as the aileron control (left
stick, left rudder - right stick, right rudder). This is known as synchronised controls when done
properly, and is difficult to learn and apply well. As each aircraft is different, learning the correct
amount of rudder to apply with aileron is different for each aircraft.

The origin of the name Dutch roll is uncertain. However, it is likely that this term, describing a
lateral asymmetric motion of an airplane, was borrowed from a reference to similar appearing
motion in ice skating. In 1916, aeronautical engineer Jerome C. Hunsaker published the
following quote: Dutch roll the third element in the [lateral] motion [of an airplane] is a
yawing to the right and left, combined with rolling. The motion is oscillatory of period for 5 to
12 seconds which may or may not be damped. The analogy to Dutch Roll or Outer Edge in ice

35
skating is obvious. [1] In 1916, Dutch Roll was the term used for skating repetitively to right and
left (by analogy to the motion described for the aircraft) on the outer edge of ones skates. By
1916, the term had been imported from skating to aeronautical engineering, perhaps by Hunsaker
himself. 1916 was only five years after G.H. Bryan did the first mathematics of lateral motion of
aircraft in 1911. The second lateral motion is an oscillatory combined roll and yaw motion called
Dutch roll, perhaps because of its similarity to an ice-skating motion of the same name made by
Dutch skaters; the origin of the name is unclear. The Dutch roll may be described as a yaw and
roll to the right, followed by a recovery towards the equilibrium condition, then an overshooting
of this condition and a yaw and roll to the left, then back past the equilibrium attitude, and so on.
The period is usually on the order of 315 seconds, but it can vary from a few seconds for light
aircraft to a minute or more for airliners. Damping is increased by large directional stability and
small dihedral and decreased by small directional stability and large dihedral. Although usually
stable in a normal aircraft, the motion may be so slightly damped that the effect is very
unpleasant and undesirable. In swept-back wing aircraft, the Dutch roll is solved by installing a
yaw damper, in effect a special-purpose automatic pilot that damps out any yawing oscillation by
applying rudder corrections. Some swept-wing aircraft have an unstable Dutch roll. If the Dutch
roll is very lightly damped or unstable, the yaw damper becomes a safety requirement, rather
than a pilot and passenger convenience. Dual yaw dampers are required and a failed yaw damper
is cause for limiting flight to low altitudes, and possibly lower mach numbers, where the Dutch
roll stability is improved.

Spiral Divergence

35
Spiral mode:

If a spirally unstable aircraft, through the action of a gust or other disturbance, gets a small initial
roll angle to the right, for example, a gentle sideslip to the right is produced. The sideslip causes
a yawing moment to the right. If the dihedral stability is low, and yaw damping is small, the
directional stability keeps turning the aircraft while the continuing bank angle maintains the
sideslip and the yaw angle. This spiral gets continuously steeper and tighter until finally, if the
motion is not checked, a steep, high-speed spiral dive results. The motion develops so gradually,
however that it is usually corrected unconsciously by the pilot, who may not be aware that spiral
instability exists. If the pilot cannot see the horizon, for instance because of clouds, he might not
notice that he is slowly going into the spiral dive, which can lead into the graveyard spiral. To be
spirally stable, an aircraft must have some combination of a sufficiently large dihedral, which
increases roll stability, and a sufficiently long vertical tail arm, which increases yaw damping.
Increasing the vertical tail area then magnifies the degree of stability or instability. The spiral
dive should not be confused with a spin.

Detection

35
While descending turns are commonly performed by pilots as a standard flight manoeuvre, the
spiral dive is differentiated from a descending turn owing to its feature of accelerating speed. It is
therefore an unstable flight condition, and pilots are trained to recognise its onset and to
implement recovery procedures safely and immediately. Without intervention by the pilot,
acceleration of the aircraft will lead to structural failure of the airframe, either as a result of
excess aerodynamic loading or flight into terrain. Spiral dive training therefore revolves around
pilot recognition and recovery.

Recovery:

Spiral dive accidents are typically associated with visual flight (non-instrument flight) in
conditions of poor visibility, where the pilot's reference to the visual natural horizon is
effectively reduced, or prevented entirely, by such factors as cloud or darkness. The inherent
danger of the spiral dive is that the condition, especially at onset, cannot be easily detected by the
sensory mechanisms of the human body. The physical forces exerted on an aeroplane during a
spiral dive are effectively balanced and the pilot cannot detect the banked attitude of the spiral
descent. If the pilot detects acceleration, but fails to detect the banked attitude associated with the
spiral descent, a mistaken attempt may be to recovery with mere backpressure (pitch-up inputs)
on the control wheel. However, with the lift vector of the aircraft now directed to the centre of
the spiral turn, this erred nose-up input simply tightens the spiral condition and increases the rate
of acceleration and increases dangerous airframe loading. To successfully recover from a spiral
dive, the lift vector must first be redirected upward (relative to the natural horizon) before
backpressure is applied to the control column. Since the acceleration can be very rapid, recovery
is dependent on the pilot's ability to quickly close the throttle (which is contributing to the
acceleration), position the lift vector upward, relative to the Earth's surface before the dive
recovery is implemented; any factor that would impede the pilot's external reference to the
Earth's surface could delay or prevent recovery. The quick and efficient completion of these tasks
is crucial as the aircraft can accelerate through maximum speed limits within only a few seconds,
where the structural integrity of the airframe will be compromised.

For the purpose of flight training, instructors typically establish the aircraft in a descending turn
with initially slow but steadily accelerating airspeed the initial slow speed facilitates the

35
potentially slow and sometimes erred response of student pilots. The cockpit controls are
released by the instructor and the student is instructed to recover. It is not uncommon for a spiral
dive to result from an unsuccessful attempt to enter a spin, but the extreme nose-down attitude of
the aircraft during the spin-spiral transition makes this method of entry ineffective for training
purposes as there is little room to permit student error or delay. All spiral dive recoveries entail
the same recovery sequence: first, the throttle must be immediately closed; second, the aircraft is
rolled level with co-ordinated use of ailerons and rudder; and third, backpressure is exerted
smoothly on the control wheel to recover from the dive.

Flight control surfaces


Flight control surfaces

Basic
aircraft control surfaces and motion.

Aircraft flight control surfaces allow a pilot to adjust and control the aircraft's flight attitude.

Development of an effective set of flight controls was a critical advance in the development of
aircraft. Early efforts at fixed-wing aircraft design succeeded in generating sufficient lift to get

35
the aircraft off the ground, but once aloft, the aircraft proved uncontrollable, often with
disastrous results. The development of effective flight controls is what allowed stable flight.

This article describes the control surfaces used on a fixed wing aircraft of conventional design.
Other fixed wing aircraft configurations may use different control surfaces but the basic
principles remain. The controls (stick and rudder) for rotary wing aircraft (helicopter or
autogyro) accomplish the same motions about the three axes of rotation, but manipulate the
rotating flight controls (main rotor disk and tail rotor disk) in a completely different manner.

Contents
1 Development
2 Axes of motion

o 2.1 Lateral axis

o 2.2 Longitudinal axis

o 2.3 Vertical axis

3 Main control surfaces

o 3.1 Ailerons

o 3.2 Elevator

o 3.3 Rudder

o 3.4 Secondary effects of controls

3.4.1 Ailerons

3.4.2 Rudder

o 3.5 Turning the aircraft

o 3.6 Alternate main control surfaces

4 Secondary control surfaces

o 4.1 Spoilers

o 4.2 Flaps

o 4.3 Slats

o 4.4 Air brakes

5 Other control surfaces

35
o 5.1 Trim controls

5.1.1 Elevator trim

5.1.1.1 Trimming tail plane

5.1.1.2 Control horn

5.1.1.3 Spring trim

5.1.2 Rudder and aileron trim

Development
The Wright brothers are credited with developing the first practical control surfaces. It is a main
part of their patent on flying. [1] Unlike modern control surfaces they used wing warping. In an
attempt to circumvent the Wright patent, Glen Curtis made hinged control surfaces. Hinged
control surfaces have the advantage of not causing stresses that are a problem of wing warping
and are easier to build into structures.

Axes of motion

Rotation around the three axes

An aircraft is free to rotate around three axes which are perpendicular to each other and intersect
at its center of gravity (CG). To control position and direction a pilot must be able to control
rotation about each of them.

Lateral axis -The lateral axis passes through an aircraft from wingtip to wingtip. Rotation
about this axis is called pitch. Pitch changes the vertical direction that the aircraft's nose is
pointing. The elevators are the primary control surfaces for pitch.

Longitudinal axis

The longitudinal axis passes through the aircraft from nose to tail. Rotation about this axis is
called roll. Rolling motion changes the orientation of the aircraft's wings with respect to the

35
downward force of gravity. The pilot changes bank angle by increasing the lift on one wing and
decreasing it on the other. This differential lift causes bank rotation around the longitudinal axis.
The ailerons are the primary control of bank. The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

Vertical axis

The vertical axis passes through an aircraft from top to bottom. Rotation about this axis is called
yaw. Yaw changes the direction the aircraft's nose is pointing, left or right. The primary control
of yaw is with the rudder. Ailerons also have a secondary effect on yaw.

It is important to note that these axes move with the aircraft, and change relative to the earth as
the aircraft moves. For example, for an aircraft whose left wing is pointing straight down, its
"vertical" axis is parallel with the ground, while its "lateral" axis is perpendicular to the ground.

Main control surfaces


The main control surfaces of a fixed-wing aircraft are attached to the airframe on hinges or tracks
so they may move and thus deflect the air stream passing over them. This redirection of the air
stream generates an unbalanced force to rotate the plane about the associated axis.

Ailerons

Aileron surface

Ailerons are mounted on the trailing edge of each wing near the wingtips, and move in opposite
directions. When the pilot moves the stick left, or turns the wheel counter-clockwise, the left
aileron goes up and the right aileron goes down. A raised aileron reduces lift on that wing and a
lowered one increases lift, so moving the stick left causes the left wing to drop and the right wing
to rise. This causes the aircraft to roll to the left and begin to turn to the left. Centering the stick
returns the ailerons to neutral maintaining the bank angle. The aircraft will continue to turn until
opposite aileron motion returns the bank angle to zero to fly straight.

Elevator

An elevator is mounted on the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer on each side of the fin in
the tail. They move up and down together. When the pilot pulls the stick backward, the elevators
go up. Pushing the stick forward causes the elevators to go down. Raised elevators push down on
the tail and cause the nose to pitch up. This makes the wings fly at a higher angle of attack which
generates more lift and more drag. Centering the stick returns the elevators to neutral and stops
the change of pitch. Many aircraft use a stabilator a moveable horizontal stabilizer in place

35
of an elevator. Some aircraft, such as an MD-80, use a servo tab within the elevator surface to
aerodynamically move the main surface into position. The direction of travel of the control tab
will thus be in a direction opposite to the main control surface. It is for this reason that an MD-80
tail looks like it has a 'split' elevator system.

Rudder

The rudder is typically mounted on the trailing edge of the fin, part of the empennage. When the
pilot pushes the left pedal, the rudder deflects left. Pushing the right pedal causes the rudder to
deflect right. Deflecting the rudder right pushes the tail left and causes the nose to yaw to the
right. Centering the rudder pedals returns the rudder to neutral and stops the yaw.

Secondary effects of controls

Ailerons

The ailerons primarily control roll. Whenever lift is increased, induced drag is also increased.
When the stick is moved left to roll the aircraft to the left, the right aileron is lowered which
increases lift on the right wing and therefore increases induced drag on the right wing. Using
ailerons causes adverse yaw, meaning the nose of the aircraft yaws in a direction opposite to the
aileron application. When moving the stick to the left to bank the wings, adverse yaw moves the
nose of the aircraft to the right. Adverse yaw is more pronounced for light aircraft with long
wings, such as gliders. It is counteracted by the pilot with the rudder. Differential ailerons are
ailerons which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects less than the upward-
moving one, reducing adverse yaw.

Rudder

Using the rudder causes one wing to move forward faster than the other. Increased speed means
increased lift, and hence rudder use causes a roll effect. Also, since rudders generally extend
above the aircraft's center of gravity, a torque is imparted to the aircraft resulting in an adverse
bank. Pushing the rudder to the right not only pulls the tail to the left and the nose to the right,
but it also "spins" the aircraft as if a left turn were going to be made. Out of all the control inputs,
rudder input creates the greatest amount of adverse effect. For this reason ailerons and rudder are
generally used together on light aircraft: when turning to the left, the control column is moved
left, and adequate left rudder is applied.

Turning the aircraft

Unlike a boat, turning an aircraft is not normally carried out with the rudder. With aircraft, the
turn is caused by the horizontal component of lift. The lifting force, perpendicular to the wings of
the aircraft, is tilted in the direction of the intended turn by rolling the aircraft into the turn. As
the bank angle is increased the lifting force, which was previously acting only in the vertical, is
split into two components: One acting vertically and one acting horizontally.

35
If the total lift is kept constant, the vertical component of lift will decrease. As the weight of the
aircraft is unchanged, this would result in the aircraft descending if not countered. To maintain
level flight requires increased positive (up) elevator to increase the angle of attack, increase the
total lift generated and keep the vertical component of lift equal with the weight of the aircraft.
This cannot continue indefinitely. The wings can only generate a finite amount of lift at a given
air speed. As the load factor (commonly called G loading) is increased an accelerated
aerodynamic stall will occur, even though the aircraft is above its 1G stall speed.

The total lift (load factor) required to maintain level flight is directly related to the bank angle.
This means that for a given airspeed, level flight can only be maintained up to a certain given
angle of bank. Beyond this angle of bank, the aircraft will suffer an accelerated stall if the pilot
attempts to generate enough lift to maintain level flight.

Alternate main control surfaces

Some aircraft configurations have non-standard primary controls. For example instead of
elevators at the back of the stabilizers, the entire tailplane may change angle. Some aircraft have
a tail in the shape of a V, and the moving parts at the back of those combine the functions of
elevators and rudder. Delta wing aircraft may have "elevons" at the back of the wing, which
combine the functions of elevators and ailerons.

Secondary control surfaces

KLM Fokker 70, showing position of flap and liftdumpers flight controls. The liftdumpers are
the lifted cream-coloured panels on the wing upper surface (in this picture there are five on the
right wing). The flaps are the large drooped surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing.

Spoilers

On low drag aircraft like sailplanes, spoilers are used to disrupt airflow over the wing and greatly
increase the amount of drag. This allows a glider pilot to lose altitude without gaining excessive
airspeed. Spoilers are sometimes called "lift dumpers". Spoilers that can be used asymmetrically
are called spoilerons and are able to affect an aircraft's roll.

Flaps

35
Flaps are mounted on the trailing edge of each wing on the inboard section of each wing (near
the wing roots). They are deflected down to increase the effective curvature of the wing. Flaps
raise the Maximum Lift Coefficient of the aircraft and therefore reduce its stalling speed. [3] They
are used during low speed, high angle of attack flight including take-off and descent for landing.
Some aircraft are equipped with "flapperons", which are more commonly called "inboard
ailerons"[citation needed]. These devices function primarily as ailerons, but on some aircraft, will
"droop" when the flaps are deployed, thus acting as both a flap and a roll-control inboard aileron.

Slats

Slats, also known as Leading Edge Devices, are extensions to the front of a wing for lift
augmentation, and are intended to reduce the stalling speed by altering the airflow over the wing.
Slats may be fixed or retractable - fixed slats (e.g. as on the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch) give excellent
slow speed and STOL capabilities, but compromise higher speed performance. Retractable slats,
as seen on most airliners, provide reduced stalling speed for take-off and landing, but are
retracted for cruising.

Air brakes

Air brakes, also called spoilers, are used to increase drag. On a typical airliner, for example, the
spoilers are a series of panels on the upper surface of the wing which deploy upwards to disrupt
airflow over the wing, thus adding drag. The number of panels that deploy, as well as the degree
to which they deploy, depends on the regime of flight in which they are used. For example, if a
pilot must descend quickly without increasing speed, he may select a speed brake setting for the
desired effect. In such a case, only certain spoiler panels will deploy to create the most efficient
reduction in speed without overstressing the wing. On most airliners, spoiler panels on the wings
mix with aileron inputs to enhance roll control. For example, a left bank will engage the ailerons
as well as deploy certain spoiler panels on the down-going wing. Ground spoilers are essentially
similar to flight spoilers, except that they deploy upon touchdown on the runway, and include all
spoiler panels for maximum "lift dump". After touchdown, the ground spoilers deploy, and
"dump" the lift generated by the wings, thus placing the aircraft's weight on the wheels, which
accomplish the vast majority of braking after touchdown. Most jet airliners also have a thrust
reverser, which simply deflects exhaust from the engines forward, helping to slow the aircraft
down.

Other control surfaces


Trim controls

Trimming controls allow a pilot to balance the lift and drag being produced by the wings and
control surfaces over a wide range of load and airspeed. This reduces the effort required to adjust
or maintain a desired flight attitude.

Elevator trim

35
Elevator trim balances the control force necessary to maintain the aerodynamic down force on
the tail. Whilst carrying out certain flight exercises, a lot of trim could be required to maintain
the desired angle of attack. This mainly applies to slow flight, where maintaining a nose-up
attitude requires a lot of trim. Elevator trim is correlated with the speed of the airflow over the
tail, thus airspeed changes to the aircraft require re-trimming. An important design parameter for
aircraft is the stability of the aircraft when trimmed for level flight. Any disturbances such as
gusts or turbulence will be damped over a short period of time and the aircraft will return to its
level flight trimmed airspeed.

Trimming tail plane

Except for very light aircraft, trim tabs on elevators are unable to provide the force and range of
motion desired. To provide the appropriate trim force the entire horizontal tail plane is made
adjustable in pitch. This allows the pilot to select exactly the right amount of positive or negative
lift from the tail plane while reducing drag from the elevators.

Control horn

A control horn is a section of control surface which projects ahead of the pivot point. It generates
a force which tends to increase the surface's deflection thus reducing the control pressure
experienced by the pilot. Control horns may also incorporate a counterweight which helps to
balance the control and prevent it from "fluttering" in the airstream. Some designs feature
separate anti-flutter weights.

Spring trim

In the simplest cases trimming is done by a mechanical spring (or bungee) which adds
appropriate force to augment the pilot's control input. The spring is usually connected to an
elevator trim lever to allow the pilot to set the spring force applied.

Rudder and aileron trim

Trim often does not only apply to the elevator, as there is also trim for the rudder and ailerons in
larger aircraft. The use of this is to counter the effects of slip stream, or to counter the effects of
the centre of gravity being to one side. This can be caused by a larger weight on one side of the
aircraft compared to the other, such as when one fuel tank has a lot more fuel in it than the other

35
Inertial navigation system

An inertial navigation system (INS) is a


navigation aid that uses a computer, motion
sensors (accelerometers) and rotation sensors
(gyroscopes) to continuously calculate via dead
reckoning the position, orientation, and velocity
(direction and speed of movement) of a moving
object without the need for external references.
It is used on vehicles such as ships, aircraft,
submarines, guided missiles, and spacecraft.
Other terms used to refer to inertial navigation
systems or closely related devices include
inertial guidance system, inertial reference
platform, inertial instrument, and many other variations.

Contents
1 Overview
2 Error

3 History

4 Guidance in Human spaceflight

5 Aircraft inertial guidance

6 Inertial navigation systems in detail

7 Basic schemes

o 7.1 Gimballed gyrostabilized platforms

o 7.2 Fluid-suspended gyrostabilized platforms

o 7.3 Strapdown systems

o 7.4 Motion-based alignment

o 7.5 Vibrating gyros

o 7.6 Hemispherical Resonator Gyros (wine glass or mushroom gyros)

35
o 7.7 Quartz rate sensors

o 7.8 MHD sensor

o 7.9 Laser gyros

o 7.10 Pendular accelerometers

8 Methodology

Overview
An inertial navigation system includes at least a computer and a platform or module
containing accelerometers, gyroscopes, or other motion-sensing devices. The INS is initially
provided with its position and velocity from another source (a human operator, a GPS satellite
receiver, etc.), and thereafter computes its own updated position and velocity by integrating
information received from the motion sensors. The advantage of an INS is that it requires no
external references in order to determine its position, orientation, or velocity once it has been
initialized.

An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for
example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement), and a change in its
orientation (rotation about an axis). It does this by measuring the linear and angular accelerations
applied to the system. Since it requires no external reference (after initialization), it is immune to
jamming and deception.

Inertial-navigation systems are used in many different moving objects, including vehicles
such as aircraft, submarines, spacecraftand guided missiles. However, their cost and
complexity place constraints on the environments in which they are practical for use.

Gyroscopes measure the angular velocity of the system in the inertial reference frame. By
using the original orientation of the system in the inertial reference frame as the initial condition
and integrating the angular velocity, the system's current orientation is known at all times. This
can be thought of as the ability of a blindfolded passenger in a car to feel the car turn left and
right or tilt up and down as the car ascends or descends hills. Based on this information alone, he
knows what direction the car is facing but not how fast or slow it is moving, or whether it is
sliding sideways.

Accelerometers measure the linear acceleration of the system in the inertial reference
frame, but in directions that can only be measured relative to the moving system (since the
accelerometers are fixed to the system and rotate with the system, but are not aware of their own
orientation). This can be thought of as the ability of a blindfolded passenger in a car to feel
himself pressed back into his seat as the vehicle accelerates forward or pulled forward as it slows
down; and feel himself pressed down into his seat as the vehicle accelerates up a hill or rise up
out of his seat as the car passes over the crest of a hill and begins to descend. Based on this

35
information alone, he knows how the vehicle is accelerating relative to itself, that is, whether it is
accelerating forward, backward, left, right, up (toward the car's ceiling), or down (toward the
car's floor) measured relative to the car, but not the direction relative to the Earth, since he did
not know what direction the car was facing relative to the Earth when he felt the accelerations.

However, by tracking both the current angular velocity of the system and the current
linear acceleration of the system measured relative to the moving system, it is possible to
determine the linear acceleration of the system in the inertial reference frame. Performing
integration on the inertial accelerations (using the original velocity as the initial conditions) using
the correct kinematic equations yields the inertial velocities of the system, and integration again
(using the original position as the initial condition) yields the inertial position. In our example, if
the blindfolded passenger knew how the car was pointed and what its velocity was before he was
blindfolded, and if he is able to keep track of both how the car has turned and how it has
accelerated and decelerated since, he can accurately know the current orientation, position, and
velocity of the car at any time.

Error
All inertial navigation systems suffer from integration drift: small errors in the
measurement of acceleration and angular velocity are integrated into progressively larger errors
in velocity, which are compounded into still greater errors in position. Since the new position is
calculated from the previous calculated position and the measured acceleration and angular
velocity, these errors are cumulative and increase at a rate roughly proportional to the time since
the initial position was input. Therefore the position must be periodically corrected by input from
some other type of navigation system. The inaccuracy of a good-quality navigational system is
normally less than 0.6 nautical miles per hour in position and on the order of tenths of a degree
per hour in orientation.

Accordingly, inertial navigation is usually used to supplement other navigation systems,


providing a higher degree of accuracy than is possible with the use of any single system. For
example, if, in terrestrial use, the inertially tracked velocity is intermittently updated to zero by
stopping, the position will remain precise for a much longer time, a so-called zero velocity
update.

Control theory in general and Kalman filtering in particular, provide a theoretical


framework for combining information from various sensors. One of the most common
alternative sensors is a satellite navigation radio, such as GPS. By properly combining the
information from an INS and the GPS system (GPS/INS), the errors in position and velocity are
stable. Furthermore, INS can be used as a short-term fallback while GPS signals are unavailable,
for example when a vehicle passes through a tunnel.

History
Inertial navigation systems were originally developed for rockets. American rocket
pioneer Robert Goddard experimented with rudimentary gyroscopic systems. Dr. Goddard's

35
systems were of great interest to contemporary German pioneers including Wernher von Braun.
The systems entered more widespread use with the advent of spacecraft, guided missiles, and
commercial airliners.

Early German World War II V2 guidance systems combined two gyroscopes and a lateral
accelerometer with a simple analog computer to adjust the azimuth for the rocket in flight.
Analog computer signals were used to drive four external rudders on the tail fins for flight
control. The GN&C (Guidance, Navigation, and Control) system for V2 provided many
innovations as an integrated platform with closed loop guidance. At the end of the war Von
Braun engineered the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, along with plans and test
vehicles, to the Americans. They arrived at Fort Bliss, Texas in 1945 under the provisions of
Operation Paperclip and were subsequently moved to Huntsville, Alabama, in 1950 [1] where they
worked for U.S. military rocket research programs.

In the early 1950s, the US government wanted to insulate itself against over dependency
on the German team for military applications. Among the areas that were domestically
"developed" was missile guidance. In the early 1950s the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory (later
to become the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.) was chosen by the Air Force Western
Development Division to provide a self-contained guidance system backup to Convair in San
Diego for the new Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile [2][3][4] [5] (Construction and testing
were completed by Arma Division of AmBosch Arma). The technical monitor for the MIT task
was a young engineer named Jim Fletcher who later served as the NASA Administrator. The
Atlas guidance system was to be a combination of an on-board autonomous system, and a
ground-based tracking and command system. This was the beginning of a philosophic
controversy, which, in some areas, remains unresolved. The self-contained system finally
prevailed in ballistic missile applications for obvious reasons. In space exploration, a mixture of
the two remains.

In the summer of 1952, Dr. Richard Battin and Dr. J. Halcombe "Hal" Laning, Jr.,
researched computational based solutions to guidance. Dr. Laning, with the help of Phil Hankins
and Charlie Werner, initiated work on MAC, an algebraic programming language for the IBM
650, which was completed by early spring of 1958. MAC became the work-horse of the MIT lab.
MAC is an extremely readable language having a three-line format, vector-matrix notations and
mnemonic and indexed subscripts. Today's Space Shuttle (STS) language called HAL/S,
(developed by Intermetrics, Inc.) is a direct offshoot of MAC. Since the principal architect of
HAL was Jim Miller, who co-authored a report on the MAC system with Hal Laning, it is
probable the Space Shuttle language is named for Laning and not, as some have suggested, for
the electronic star of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey''.[2]

Hal Laning and Richard Battin undertook the initial analytical work on the Atlas inertial
guidance in 1954. Other key figures at Convair were Charlie Bossart, the Chief Engineer, and
Walter Schweidetzky, head of the guidance group. Schweidetzky had worked with Wernher von
Braun at Peenemuende during World War II.

The initial Delta guidance system assessed the difference in position from a reference
trajectory. A velocity to be gained (VGO) calculation is made to correct the current trajectory

35
with the objective of driving VGO to zero. The mathematics of this approach were
fundamentally valid, but dropped because of the challenges in accurate inertial guidance and
analog computing power. The challenges faced by the Delta efforts were overcome by the Q
system (see Q-guidance) of guidance. The Q system's revolution was to bind the challenges of
missile guidance (and associated equations of motion) in the matrix Q. The Q matrix represents
the partial derivatives of the velocity with respect to the position vector. A key feature of this
approach allowed for the components of the vector cross product (v, xdv, /dt) to be used as the
basic autopilot rate signalsa technique that became known as cross-product steering. The Q-
system was presented at the first Technical Symposium on Ballistic Missiles held at the Ramo-
Wooldridge Corporation in Los Angeles on June 21 and 22, 1956. The Q system was classified
information through the 1960s. Derivations of this guidance are used for today's missiles.

Guidance in Human spaceflight


In Feb of 1961 NASA Awarded MIT a contract for preliminary design study of a
guidance and navigation system for Apollo. MIT and the Delco Electronics Div. of General
Motors Corp. were awarded the joint contract for design and production of the Apollo Guidance
and Navigation systems for the Command Module and the Lunar Module. Delco produced the
Inertial Measurement Units for these systems, Kollsman Instrument Corp. produced the Optical
Systems, and the Apollo Guidance Computer was built by Raytheon under subcontract. (see
Apollo on-board guidance, navigation, and control system, Dave Hoag, International Space Hall
of Fame Dedication Conference in Alamogordo, N.M., October 1976 [6]).

For the space shuttle, an open loop (no feedback) guidance is used to guide the shuttle
from lift off until Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) separation. After SRB separation the primary
space shuttle guidance is named PEG4 (Powered Explicit Guidance). PEG4 takes into account
both the Q system and the predictor-corrector attributes of the original "Delta" System (PEG
Guidance). Although many updates to the shuttle's navigation system have taken place over the
last 30 years (ex. GPS in the OI-22 build), the guidance core of today's Shuttle GN&C system
has evolved little. Within a manned system, there is a human interface needed for the guidance
system. As Astronauts are the customer for the system, many new teams are formed that touch
GN&C as it is a primary interface to "fly" the vehicle.

Aircraft inertial guidance


One example of a popular INS for commercial aircraft was the Delco Carousel, which
provided partial automation of navigation in the days before complete flight management
systems became commonplace. The Carousel allowed pilots to enter a series of waypoints, and
then guided the aircraft from one waypoint to the next using an INS to determine aircraft position
and velocity. Boeing Corporation subcontracted the Delco Electronics Div. of General Motors to
design and build the first production Carousel systems for the early models (-100, -200, and
-300) models of the 747 aircraft. The 747 utilized three Carousel systems operating in concert for
reliablility purposes. The Carousel system and derivatives thereof were subsequently adopted for
use in many other commercial and military aircraft. The USAF C-141 was the first military
aircraft to utilize the Carousel in a dual system configuration, followed by the C-5A which

35
utilized the triple INS configuration, similar to the 747. The KC-135 fleet was fitted with a dual
Carousel system that was aided by a Doppler radar.

Inertial navigation systems in detail

Inertial navigation unit of french IRBM S3.

INSs have angular and linear accelerometers (for changes in position); some include a
gyroscopic element (for maintaining an absolute angular reference).

Angular accelerometers measure how the vehicle is rotating in space. Generally, there's at
least one sensor for each of the three axes: pitch (nose up and down), yaw (nose left and right)
and roll (clockwise or counter-clockwise from the cockpit).

Linear accelerometers measure non-gravitational accelerations[3] of the vehicle. Since it


can move in three axes (up & down, left & right, forward & back), there is a linear accelerometer
for each axis.

A computer continually calculates the vehicle's current position. First, for each of the six
degrees of freedom (x,y,z and x, y and z), it integrates over time the sensed acceleration,
together with an estimate of gravity, to calculate the current velocity. Then it integrates the
velocity to calculate the current position.

Inertial guidance is difficult without computers. The desire to use inertial guidance in the
Minuteman missile and Project Apollo drove early attempts to miniaturize computers.

35
Inertial guidance systems are now usually combined with satellite navigation systems
through a digital filtering system. The inertial system provides short term data, while the satellite
system corrects accumulated errors of the inertial system.

An inertial guidance system that will operate near the surface of the earth must
incorporate Schuler tuning so that its platform will continue pointing towards the center of the
earth as a vehicle moves from place to place.

Basic schemes
Gimballed gyrostabilized platforms

Some systems place the linear accelerometers on a gimbaled gyrostabilized platform. The
gimbals are a set of three rings, each with a pair of bearings initially at right angles. They let the
platform twist about any rotational axis (or, rather, they let the platform keep the same
orientation while the vehicle rotates around it). There are two gyroscopes (usually) on the
platform.

Two gyroscopes are used to cancel gyroscopic precession, the tendency of a gyroscope to
twist at right angles to an input force. By mounting a pair of gyroscopes (of the same rotational
inertia and spinning at the same speed) at right angles the precessions are cancelled, and the
platform will resist twisting.

This system allows a vehicle's roll, pitch, and yaw angles to be measured directly at the
bearings of the gimbals. Relatively simple electronic circuits can be used to add up the linear
accelerations, because the directions of the linear accelerometers do not change.

The big disadvantage of this scheme is that it uses many expensive precision mechanical
parts. It also has moving parts that can wear out or jam, and is vulnerable to gimbal lock. The
primary guidance system of the Apollo spacecraft used a three-axis gyrostabilized platform,
feeding data to the Apollo Guidance Computer. Maneuvers had to be carefully planned to avoid
gimbal lock.

Fluid-suspended gyrostabilized platforms

Gimbal lock constrains maneuvering, and it would be beneficial to eliminate the slip
rings and bearings of the gimbals. Therefore, some systems use fluid bearings or a flotation
chamber to mount a gyrostabilized platform. These systems can have very high precisions (e.g.,
Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere). Like all gyrostabilized platforms, this system runs well
with relatively slow, low-power computers.

The fluid bearings are pads with holes through which pressurized inert gas (such as
Helium) or oil press against the spherical shell of the platform. The fluid bearings are very
slippery, and the spherical platform can turn freely. There are usually four bearing pads, mounted
in a tetrahedral arrangement to support the platform.

35
In premium systems, the angular sensors are usually specialized transformer coils made
in a strip on a flexible printed circuit board. Several coil strips are mounted on great circles
around the spherical shell of the gyrostabilized platform. Electronics outside the platform uses
similar strip-shaped transformers to read the varying magnetic fields produced by the
transformers wrapped around the spherical platform. Whenever a magnetic field changes shape,
or moves, it will cut the wires of the coils on the external transformer strips. The cutting
generates an electric current in the external strip-shaped coils, and electronics can measure that
current to derive angles.

Cheap systems sometimes use bar codes to sense orientations, and use solar cells or a
single transformer to power the platform. Some small missiles have powered the platform with
light from a window or optic fibers to the motor. A research topic is to suspend the platform with
pressure from exhaust gases. Data is returned to the outside world via the transformers, or
sometimes LEDs communicating with external photodiodes.

Strapdown systems

Lightweight digital computers permit the system to eliminate the gimbals, creating
strapdown systems, so called because their sensors are simply strapped to the vehicle. This
reduces the cost, eliminates gimbal lock, removes the need for some calibrations, and increases
the reliability by eliminating some of the moving parts. Angular rate sensors called rate gyros
measure how the angular velocity of the vehicle changes.

A strapdown system has a dynamic measurement range several hundred times that
required by a gimbaled system. That is, it must integrate the vehicle's attitude changes in pitch,
roll and yaw, as well as gross movements. Gimballed systems could usually do well with update
rates of 5060 Hz. However, strapdown systems normally update about 2000 Hz. The higher rate
is needed to keep the maximum angular measurement within a practical range for real rate gyros:
about 4 milliradians. Most rate gyros are now laser interferometers.

The data updating algorithms (direction cosines or quaternions) involved are too complex
to be accurately performed except by digital electronics. However, digital computers are now so
inexpensive and fast that rate gyro systems can now be practically used and mass-produced. The
Apollo lunar module used a strapdown system in its backup Abort Guidance System (AGS).

Strapdown systems are nowadays commonly used in commercial and tactical applications
(aircraft, missiles, etc.). However they are still not widespread in applications where superb
accuracy is required (like submarine navigation or strategic ICBM guidance).

Motion-based alignment

The orientation of a gyroscope system can sometimes also be inferred simply from its
position history (e.g., GPS). This is, in particular, the case with planes and cars, where the
velocity vector usually implies the orientation of the vehicle body.

35
For example, Honeywell's Align in Motion[4] is an initialization process where the
initialization occurs while the aircraft is moving, in the air or on the ground. This is
accomplished using GPS and an inertial reasonableness test, thereby allowing commercial data
integrity requirements to be met. This process has been FAA certified to recover pure INS
performance equivalent to stationary align procedures for civilian flight times up to 18 hours. It
avoids the need for gyroscope batteries on aircraft.

Vibrating gyros

Less-expensive navigation systems, intended for use in automobiles, may use a vibrating
structure gyroscope to detect changes in heading, and the odometer pickup to measure distance
covered along the vehicle's track. This type of system is much less accurate than a higher-end
INS, but it is adequate for the typical automobile application where GPS is the primary
navigation system, and dead reckoning is only needed to fill gaps in GPS coverage when
buildings or terrain block the satellite signals.

Hemispherical Resonator Gyros (wine glass or mushroom gyros)

If a standing wave is induced in a hemispheric resonant cavity, and then the resonant
cavity is rotated, the spherical harmonic standing wave rotates through an angle different than the
quartz resonator structure due to the Coriolis force. The movement of the outer case with respect
to the standing wave pattern is proportional to the total rotation angle and can be sensed by
appropriate electronics. The system resonators are machined from quartz due to its excellent
mechanical properties. The electrodes that drive and sense the standing waves are deposited
directly onto separate quartz structures that surround the resonator. These gyros can operate in
either a whole angle mode (which gives them nearly unlimited rate capability) or a force
rebalance mode that holds the standing wave in a fixed orientation with respect to the gyro
housing (which gives them much better accuracy).

This system has almost no moving parts, and is very accurate. However it is still
relatively expensive due to the cost of the precision ground and polished hollow quartz
hemispheres. Northrop Grumman currently manufactures Inertial Measurement Units for
spacecraft that use HRGs. These IMUs have demonstrated extremely high reliability since their
initial use in 1996. See [7] for a picture of an HRG.

Quartz rate sensors

35
The quartz rate sensor inside an E-Sky model helicopter

This system is usually integrated on a silicon chip. It has two mass-balanced quartz
tuning forks, arranged "handle-to-handle" so forces cancel. Aluminum electrodes evaporated
onto the forks and the underlying chip both drive and sense the motion. The system is both
manufacturable and inexpensive. Since quartz is dimensionally stable, the system can be
accurate.

As the forks are twisted about the axis of the handle, the vibration of the tines tends to
continue in the same plane of motion. This motion has to be resisted by electrostatic forces from
the electrodes under the tines. By measuring the difference in capacitance between the two tines
of a fork, the system can determine the rate of angular motion.

These products include 'tuning fork gyros'. Gyro is designed as an electronically-driven


tuning fork, often fabricated out of a single piece of quartz or silicon. Such gyros operate in
accordance with the dynamic theory that when an angle rate is applied to a translating body, a
Coriolis force is generated.

Current state of the art non-military technology (as of 2005) can build small solid state
sensors that can measure human body movements. These devices have no moving parts, and
weigh about 50 grams.

Solid state devices using the same physical principles are used for image stabilization in
small cameras or camcorders. These can be extremely small (5 mm) and are built with
Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technologies.

MHD sensor

Sensors based on magnetohydrodynamic principles can be used to measure angular


velocities.

Laser gyros

A ring laser gyro splits a beam of laser light into two beams in opposite directions
through narrow tunnels in a closed optical circular path around the perimeter of a triangular
block of temperature-stable Cervit glass with reflecting mirrors placed in each corner. When the
gyro is rotating at some angular rate, the distance traveled by each beam becomes differentthe
shorter path being opposite to the rotation. The phase-shift between the two beams can be
measured by an interferometer, and is proportional to the rate of rotation (Sagnac effect).

In practice, at low rotation rates the output frequency can drop to zero after the result of
back scattering causing the beams to synchronise and lock together. This is known as a lock-in,
or laser-lock. The result is that there is no change in the interference pattern, and therefore no
measurement change.

35
To unlock the counter-rotating light beams, laser gyros either have independent light
paths for the two directions (usually in fiber optic gyros), or the laser gyro is mounted on a
piezo-electric dither motor that rapidly vibrates the laser ring back and forth about its input axis
through the lock-in region to decouple the light waves.

The shaker is the most accurate, because both light beams use exactly the same path. Thus laser
gyros retain moving parts, but they do not move as far.

Pendular accelerometers

Principle of open loop accelerometer. Acceleration in the upward direction causes the mass to
deflect downward.

The basic, open-loop accelerometer consists of a mass attached to a spring. The mass is
constrained to move only in-line with the spring. Acceleration causes deflection of the mass and
the offset distance is measured. The acceleration is derived from the values of deflection
distance, mass, and the spring constant. The system must also be damped to avoid oscillation. A
closed-loop accelerometer achieves higher performance by using a feedback loop to cancel the
deflection, thus keeping the mass nearly stationary. Whenever the mass deflects, the feedback
loop causes an electric coil to apply an equally negative force on the mass, cancelling the motion.
Acceleration is derived from the amount of negative force applied. Because the mass barely
moves, the non-linearities of the spring and damping system are greatly reduced. In addition, this
accelerometer provides for increased bandwidth past the natural frequency of the sensing
element.

Both types of accelerometers have been manufactured as integrated micromachinery on


silicon chips.

Methodology
In one form, the navigational system of equations acquires linear and angular
measurements from the inertial and body frame, respectively and calculates the final attitude and
position in the NED frame of reference.

35
Where: f is specific force, is angular rate, a is acceleration, R is position, and V are
velocity, is the angular velocity of the earth, g is the acceleration due to gravity, , and h are
the NED location parameters. Also, super/subscripts of E, I and B are representing variables in
the Earth centered, Inertial or Body reference frame, respectively and C is a transformation of
reference frames.[

35
Lightweight Fighter program
.

A right side view of a YF-16 and a YF-17, flying side-by-side, armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder
missiles.

The Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program was a U.S. Air Force technology evaluation
program initiated in the 1960s by a cabal of officers and defense analysts known as the "Fighter
Mafia". It was spurred by then Maj. John Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory of
maneuverability, which indicated that excessive weight would have severely debilitating
consequences on the maneuverability of an aircraft. Boyd's design called for a light weight
fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds (half that of
its counterpart, the F-15 Eagle), and high maneuverability.[1] It resulted in the development of the
YF-16 and YF-17. Late in the program, in 1974, with the promise of European sales, the Air
Force changed the program name to Air Combat Fighter (ACF), and committed to purchasing
650 models of the YF-16, adopted as the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The U.S. Navy adopted a
modified version of the YF-17 as the F/A-18 Hornet

Contents
1 History
o 1.1 Missileers

o 1.2 Combat experience and E-M Theory

o 1.3 Lightweight Fighter program

o 1.4 Air Combat Fighter competition

35
History
Missileers

Project Forecast, a 1963 Air Force study, attempted to identify future weapons trends and
"certain high-priority areas for R&D, recommendations based on the greatest potential payoff for
the future. The report strongly suggested that future air combat would be carried out primarily by
long-range missile fire. Future "fighters" would be designed primarily for long range, high speed,
and equipped with extremely large radar systems in order to detect and engage opposing fighters
at beyond visual range (BVR). This made them much more like interceptors than classic fighter
designs, and led to increasingly heavier and more technologically sophisticated designs and
thus costlier.

The US Navy had long ago come to similar conclusions, and had been designing a series
of aircraft dedicated to this role. Notable among these was the well named Douglas F6D
Missileer, a slow and unmaneuverable design equipped with very powerful missiles and radar.
The US Air Force had similar designs, but these had been dedicated to the interceptor role, where
the large size of its targets allowed reasonable radar performance. However, as radar equipment
improved, in particular the introduction of Doppler radar systems, allowed similar range
performance against smaller targets. By the early 1960s, even before the release of Forecast, both
the Air Force and Navy expected to use the F-111 (then still in development as the TFX) and F-4
Phantom II for their long- and medium-range needs. The perception of a declining need for
close-in dogfighting capabilities resulted in the original decision to not install internal cannons
in the Phantom.

Combat experience and E-M Theory

However, real-world experience in the Vietnam War revealed some shortcomings in


American fighter capabilities, as early generation Soviet-bloc jet fighters proved to be more of a
challenge than expected for U.S. designs. Even though U.S. pilots had achieved favorable kill-to-
loss ratios, combat had revealed that air-to-air missiles (AAM) of this era were significantly less
reliable than anticipated. Furthermore, the rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range
missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Under these
conditions, combat invariably closed to short ranges where maneuverability and short-range air-
to-air weapons became critical, even for dedicated interceptors like the F-102 Delta Dagger.[3][4]

The need for new air superiority fighters led the USAF to initiate two concept
development studies in 1965: the Fighter Experimental (FX) project originally envisioned a
60,000 lb (27,200 kg) class twin-engine design with a variable-geometry wing, and the Advanced
Day Fighter (ADF), a lightweight design in the 25,000 lb (11,300 kg) class which would out-
perform the MiG-21 by 25%. However, the first appearance of the Mach-3-capable MiG-25 in
July 1967 would result in the ADF effort being de-emphasized in favor of the FX program,
which would produce the F-15.

35
Based on his experiences in the Korean War and as a fighter tactics instructor, in the early
1960s Colonel John Boyd and mathematician Thomas Christie developed the Energy-
Maneuverability (E-M) theory of the value of aircraft specific energy maintenance as an
advantage in fighter combat. Maneuverability was the means of getting inside an adversarys
decision-making cycle, a process Boyd called the OODA loop (for Observation-Orientation-
Decision-Action). This approach emphasized an aircraft design capable of fast transients
quick changes in speed, altitude, and direction. A fighter that is superior in its ability to gain or
lose energy while out-turning an opponent can initiate and control any engagement opportunity;
a fast transient capability allows the pilot to stay inside a hard-turning opponent when on the
offensive or to force an overshoot of an opponent when on the defensive.

These parameters called for a small, lightweight aircraft which would minimize drag
and increase the thrust-to-weight ratio but a larger, higher-lift wing to minimize wing loading
which tends to reduce top speed while increasing payload, and can lower range (which can be
compensated for by increased fuel in the larger wing).

Lightweight Fighter program

YF-16 on display at the Virginia Air and Space Center

A 1965 Air Force study suggested equipping its squadrons with a mix of high and low
cost fighters as being the most economical.Boyds theories lead to requirements for a smaller F-
15 in the 40,000 lb (18,100 kg) class. In the late 1960s he gathered around him a group of like-
minded innovators that became known as the "Lightweight Fighter Mafia". In 1969, the "Fighter
Mafia" was able to secure funds for a Study to Validate the Integration of Advanced Energy-
Maneuverability Theory with Trade-Off Analysis. General Dynamics received $149,000 and
Northrop $100,000 study contracts to design concepts that embodied Boyds E-M theory a
small, low-drag, low-weight, pure fighter with no bomb racks; their work would lead to the YF-
16 and YF-17, respectively.[10][11]

Although the Air Forces F-X proponents remained hostile to the concept because they
perceived it as a threat to the F-15 program, the ADP concept (revamped and renamed as the F-
XX) gained civilian political support under the reform-minded Deputy Secretary of Defense
David Packard, who favored the idea of competitive prototyping. As a result in May 1971, the
Air Force Prototype Study Group was established, with Boyd a key member, and two of its six
proposals would be funded, one being the Lightweight Fighter (LWF). The Request for Proposals
(RFP) was issued 6 January 1972, and called for a 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) class fighter with a good

35
turn rate, acceleration and range, and optimized for combat at speeds of Mach 0.61.6 and
altitudes of 30,00040,000 ft (9,15012,200 m). This was the region in which the USAF
expected most future air combat to occur, based on studies of the Vietnam, Six-Day, and Indo-
Pakistani wars. The anticipated average flyaway cost of a production version was $3 million.

Five manufacturers - Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Northrop, and Vought -


submitted proposals. Vought's V-1100 and Lockheed's CL-1200 Lancer were eliminated in
March 1972. Though the Boeing Model 908-909 was initially most favored, it was quite similar
in technology and appearance to the cheaper General Dynamics Model 401-16B. Since one of
the goals of the program was to validate emerging technologies, Secretary of the Air Force
Robert Seamans chose to select the General Dynamics and Northrop entries.

The first YF-16 had its official maiden flight on 2 February 1974. The second YF-16
prototype first flew on 9 May 1974. This was followed by the first flights of the Northrops YF-
17 prototypes, which were achieved on 9 June and 21 August 1974, respectively. The fly-off
commenced in 1974 as both prototypes were delivered. The YF-16s would complete 330 sorties
during the flyoff, accumulating a total of 417 flight hours; the YF-17s would accomplish 268
sorties.

Air Combat Fighter competition

Three factors would converge to turn the LWF into a serious acquisition program. First,
four North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies of the U.S. Belgium, Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Norway were looking to replace their F-104G fighter-bomber variants of the
F-104 Starfighter interceptor; furthermore, they were seeking an aircraft that their own aerospace
industries could manufacture under license, as they had the F-104G. In early 1974, they reached
an agreement with the U.S. that if the USAF placed orders for the aircraft winning the LWF
flyoff, they would consider ordering it as well. Secondly, while the USAF was not particularly
interested in a complementary air superiority fighter, it did need to begin replacing its F-4 and F-
105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers. To reflect this new, more serious intent to procure a new
aircraft, along with its reorientation toward a fighter-bomber design, the LWF program was
rolled into a new Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition in an announcement by U.S. Secretary
of Defense James R. Schlesinger in April 1974. Schlesinger also made it clear that ACF, as a
multirole fighter, would be only an addition to the air-superiority F-15, which essentially ended
opposition to the LWF. Third, the U.S. Congress was seeking to achieve greater commonality in
fighter procurements by the Air Force and Navy. The Congress, in August 1974, redirected funds
for the Navys VFAX program to a new Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF) program that would
essentially be a navalized fighter-bomber variant of ACF. These requirements meshed relatively
well, but the timing of the procurement was driven by the timeframe needs of the four allies, who
had formed a Multinational Fighter Program Group (MFPG) and were pressing for a U.S.
decision by December 1974. The U.S. Air Force had planned to announce the ACF winner in
May 1975, but the decision was delayed.[15][16][17][18]

ACF also raised the stakes for GD and Northrop because it brought in further competitors
intent on securing the lucrative order that was touted at the time as the arms deal of the
century. These were Dassault-Breguets Mirage F1M-53, the SEPECAT Jaguar, and a proposed

35
derivative of the Saab 37 Viggen named the Saab 37E Eurofighter (which is not to be confused
with the later and unrelated Eurofighter Typhoon). Northrop also offered their earlier design, the
P-530 Cobra, which looked very similar to its YF-17. The Jaguar and Cobra were dropped by the
MFPG early on, leaving two European and the two U.S. LWF designs as candidates. On 11
September 1974, the U.S. Air Force confirmed firm plans to place an order for of the winning
ACF design sufficient to equip five tactical fighter wings. On 13 January 1975, Secretary of the
Air Force John L. McLucas announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the
ACF competition.[19]

The chief reasons given by the Secretary for the decision were the YF-16's lower
operating costs; greater range; and maneuver performance that was significantly better than
that of the YF-17, especially at near-supersonic and supersonic speeds. The flight test program
revealed that the YF-16 had superior acceleration, climb rates, endurance, and (except around
Mach 0.7) turn rates. Another advantage was the fact that the YF-16 unlike the YF-17
employed the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan engine, which was the same powerplant used by
the F-15; such commonality would lower the unit costs of the engines for both programs. [18][20]
However in the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF) competition, the Navy announced on 2 May
1975 that it selected the YF-17 as the basis for what would become the McDonnell Douglas F/A-
18 Hornet.[21][22]

35
References

Cornelisse,J.W.Rocket propulsion
and Space Dynamics, J,W.Freeman
& Co.ltd.London 1982
Parket,E.R,Materials for Missiles and
Space craft,Mc Graw Hill Book
CO.Inc,1982
Aircraft Design
Ajoy Kumar Kundu
Queens University Belfas

Janes ALL THE WORLDS AIRCRAFT

35

You might also like