AIAA 2009-5727

AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference

10 - 13 August 2009, Chicago, Illinois

A Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Rig for the Wind Tunnel

Determination of Dynamic Data
J. Pattinson and M. H. Lowenberg
University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TR England, United Kingdom

and
M. G. Goman
De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1 9BH England, United Kingdom
A wind-tunnel rig to provide data from manoeuvring aircraft is developed. The Manoeuvre rig is a horizontal pendulum type rig that is capable of large amplitude motions
in 5 degrees of freedom. This enables a large set of conventional and extreme aircraft
manoeuvres to be performed in the controlled environment of a wind tunnel. A mixed
differential-algebraic mathematical model, with terms accounting for friction in the gimbals
is developed. A pilot rig has been fabricated and a preliminary experimental programme
undertaken. To illustrate some of the capabilities of the rig, a selection of 1,2,3 and 4
degree-of-freedom experimental results is given. The procedure for the fitting of the friction model is presented and a time-domain based filter-error method is used to fit a linear
aerodynamic model to the longitudinal cases.

Nomenclature
A, G
AR
c
C
C
F
Fc
Fs
g
I
lcga
lcgs
lf
lr
M
m
nb
nj
q
Qc
Qe
Qv

transformation matrix
wing aspect ratio
wing mean aerodynamic chord
constraint vector
force coefficient
force vector in body coordinates
Coulomb force
stiction force
gravitational acceleration
moment of inertia tensor
length from aircraft yaw gimbal to aircraft c.g.
length from 3-DOF gimbal to rig c.g.
length from 3-DOF gimbal to aircraft yaw gimbal
length from 3-DOF gimbal to compensator c.g.
mass matrix
component of mass matrix
number of bodies in a system
number of joints in the rig system
generalised system coordinate vector
conservative force vector
external force vector in generalised coordinates
quadratic velocity vector

PhD

Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering.

Lecturer, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Senior Member AIAA.
Professor, Department of Engineering, Senior Member AIAA.
Senior

1 of 15
American
Aeronautics
and Astronautics
Copyright 2009 by The University of Bristol. Published by the
AmericanInstitute
Institute ofof
Aeronautics
and Astronautics,
Inc., with permission.

Qnc
q
R
S
t
Vt
x
y
Z
z

non-conservative force vector

joint angular position
position coordinates of a body
Stribeck component of friction
time
wind tunnel velocity
longitudinal coordinate
lateral coordinate
average bristle deflection
vertical coordinate

Symbols

0
1
2

angle of attack
transition coefficient
roll angle
vector of Lagrange multipliers
pitch angle
quaternion component
stiffness coefficient
damping coefficient
friction coefficient
attitude of a body
friction force
angular velocity vector
yaw angle

Subscripts
a
D
i
j
L
M
R
r
s

aircraft
drag force
index
rotational joint index
lift force
pitching moment
positional component
compensator
arm
rotational component

Conventions

time derivative

body coordinates
T
matrix transpose

I.

Introduction

any methods to determine the flight characteristics of a new aircraft configuration exist. These range
from empirical techniques, CFD analyses, wind tunnel experimentation and finally flight-test itself. To
date current aircraft development involves a combination of all of these methods.1
Wind tunnel techniques for deriving flight mechanics data for controllability and dynamic stability evaluation are long established. A review of existing dynamic rig mechanisms can be found in Ref. 2. The
majority of small- and large-amplitude motion rigs are basic single degree-of-freedom(DOF) mechanisms,
moving in heave, pitch or roll. For multiple DOF motion a wide range of various mechanisms with two and
three degrees of freedom have been used. As yet, dynamic tests using multiple-degree-of-freedom dynamic
rigs have not become part of industrial practise. However their potential for the reliable prediction of dynamic behaviour, the separation of dynamic derivatives, and the validation of CFD analyses such as Ref. 3,
means that they cannot be ignored and new research into these devices continues.46 The wind tunnel test

2 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

rig presented in this paper is a novel type of dynamic rig for the simulation of a variety of aircraft manoeuvres. It is designed to implement important degrees of freedom of aircraft motion which affect the onset of
aerodynamic loads, such as heave and pitch, sway and yaw, and the velocity vector roll. A non-exhaustive
list of potential manoeuvres is presented in Table 1. These manoeuvres should allow the identification of
aircraft dynamic behaviour while excluding the effect of rig dynamics and interference. Furthermore data
could be obtained to populate more advanced aircraft models, that account for time-dependant dynamics,
such as in Ref. 7.
Table 1. Manoeuvres permitted by the dynamic rig

Manoeuvre
Free heave-pitch and sway-yaw oscillations
Forced heave-pitch and sway-yaw oscillations
Pull-up/push-over
Bank to bank
Velocity vector roll
High incidence departures

3-DOF gimbal
Model

Compensator
Arm
Support
2-DOF gimbal

Figure 1.

The manoeuvre rig. The labels indicate the five available degrees of freedom.

The manoeuvre rig is illustrated in Figure 1. It consists of a flight vehicle model mounted via a two degreeof-freedom gimbal to an arm. This arm is connected via a three degree-of-freedom gimbal to the supporting
structure. To generate heave and sway aircraft model motions, compensate for the mass, inertia aerodynamic
effects of the supporting arm an aerodynamic compensation device is mounted on the downstream end of
the arm. The weight of this compensator also means that the pendulum can be statically balanced in the
horizontal position. The 2-DOF gimbal at the model together with the 3-DOF gimbal at the support provide
the model with up to 5 degrees of freedom. These axes of motion are indicated in the illustration (Figure 1).
All axes of motion are lockable for those cases in which all 5 available degrees of freedom are not desired.
For use on this rig the aircraft model is required to have its own actuated control surfaces and should
ideally be dynamically scaled. This is so that it can be flown on the arm in a manner that reflects the
behaviour of the full scale aircraft as closely as possible.
The motions of this type of rig can be highly non-linear and an advanced mathematical description is
required to separate out the effects of the rig dynamics. To this end a mathematical model is described. It is
3 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

based on the Lagrange formulation with constraints which results in a differential-algebraic equation system.
A significant addition to this model are terms that account for friction losses in the gimbals. This friction
model is also described in this paper. A minor extension has also been made to account for the cases when
the centre-of-gravity (c.g.) of the flight vehicle model does not lie on the pivot point.
A pilot rig has been commissioned to study the concept. A CAD representation of the rig can be seen
in Figure 1. Large amplitude motions are permitted in all axes with roll () and model-yaw (a ) unlimited.
For the purposes of this research an existing approximate BAe Hawk aircraft model is used.8 The 5 axes of
motion are instrumented and a wireless system is used to transfer data to and from the aircraft model and
the compensator.
The time-domain based filter-error method9 has been used to fit a linear aerodynamic model to the
results from two of the rigs longitudinal configurations: model-pitch only and 2-DOF model-pitch and heave
(rig-pitch). Also presented in this paper are rig capability demonstrations in roll, a 3-DOF and a 4-DOF
case. This latter case uses all available axes but for heave.

II.

Mathematical model

For the purposes of design, simulation and parameter estimation a mathematical model of the rig is
developed. The equations are derived using a Lagrange formulation for multibody systems as described by
Ref 10. As is necessary at this stage rather crude or ideal approximations of the various components of the
rig are used. Some of these assumptions are listed here:
Flexibility of the arm or any other part of the rig is not taken into account.
The effect of aerodynamic forces on the arm is not modelled.
For a system of bodies i = 1, 2, ..., nb the following set of differential-algebraic equations can be written:10
i + C Tqi
M iq

= Qie + Qiv ,

C(q i , t)

i = 1, 2, ..., nb

(1)

= 0

The system generalised coordinates q i are given by

"
qi =

Ri
i

#
(2)

where Ri is the position vector and i is the attitude representation of body i. In this work, quaternions are
used to represent orientations. The derivative of the generalised coordinates with respect to time t is denoted
To account for the fact that, in general, the generalised coordinates q are not independent, constraints
q.
C are introduced using the method of Lagrange multipliers. These multipliers are denoted . Cq is the
constraint Jacobian matrix with respect to the system generalised coordinates. Assuming the case in which
the body reference is attached to the c.g. of the system, the mass matrix M i becomes
"
#
miRR
0
i
M =
(3)
0
mi
where

miRR
and

mi

= 0
0

0
mi
0
iT

0
mi

mi = G I G

(4)

(5)
i

where the inertia tensor of a rigid body defined about its centre of gravity is denoted I . G is a transformation matrix that depends on the attitude representation used. Forces external to the system are

4 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

expressed via the external force vector Qie . This vector is defined as the sum of the external conservative
and non-conservative force vectors denoted by subscripts c and nc respectively,
Qie = Qinc + Qic

(6)

Qiv is a term that results from differentiating the system kinetic energy with respect to time and is defined
as


i T
i
iT i
T
(7)
Qv = 0
2 I G
where i are the angular velocities about the local coordinate axes. This can be calculated by
i i
i = G

(8)

The rig is divided into three separate bodies denoted a, s and r; the aircraft, the arm and the compensator
respectively. The coordinate systems chosen for each body are represented in Figure 2. The generalised
xa

ya
xg

xs

za

ys
zs

yg
r

zg

Figure 2. Rig equation coordinate systems

coordinates chosen are:

q=

Ra
a
Rs
s
Rr

(9)

The mass matrix then becomes

M =

maRR

ma

msRR
s

m
mrRR

5 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(10)

Note that in this case the inertia of the compensator must be included in the ms term. The quadratic
velocity vector Qv is simply

0
i
h
a T
2 aT I a G

(11)
Qv =
0

s iT
T

2 s I s G

0
Given the external forces F aR , F a , F rR , F r , ma g, ms g and mr g, the external force vector becomes

Qe =

Aa F aR + [0 0 ma g]T
a
G F a
T
[0 0 ms g]
s r
G F
s r
A F R + [0 0 mr g]T

(12)

where A is a coordinate transformation matrix the definition of which can be found in Ref. 10. The constraint
matrix C contains 12 equations in this setup. These are: the two equations that fix the unit norm of the
quaternions,
a a = 1

(13)

s s = 1

(14)

the nine equations specifying the fact that the arm is connected to the pivot point, the aircraft and the
compensator and that the aircraft c.g. is not located at the pivot:
Ra = As [lf

0]T + Aa [lcgax
s

R = A [lcgsx
a

lcgaz ]T

(15)

(16)

(17)

R = A [lr

lcgsz ]
0

0]

and the one equation that represents the yaw and pitch gimbal of the aircraft:
T

As Aa (3, 2) = 0

(18)

Equation (18) sets the roll angle of the aircraft about the x-axis of the strut to zero.
In the pilot rig described in the following section, it has been found that friction is not negligible. To
account for this the mathematical model of friction of Ref. 11 is used. This model is simple to implement
and captures most experimentally observed friction phenomena.12 The model takes the following form:
dZj
dt
S(qj )
fi

qj

0 |qj |
Z
S(qj )

Fc + (Fs Fc ) ef |qj |
q 2
dZj
j
= 1 e v d
+ 0 z + 2 qj
dt
=

(19)
(20)
(21)

The pre-sliding displacement friction phenomenon is captured by using the bristle deflection theory of friction.
In this model, the variable Z is used to track average bristle deflections. In this pre-sliding mode the frictional
force acts like a spring. One can imagine this behaviour as the interface between two brushes. On applying
a force the bristles deflect until some critical value when sliding occurs. Before this point, if the force was
removed the two brushes would return to their original positions. The average bristle stiffness is denoted
0 and bristle damping 1 . The breakaway force, more properly known as the stiction force, is represented
by Fs . This force is combined with the Coulomb force Fc , together with f into a scalar function, S, which
models the Stribeck effect. This effect is the observed dip in friction force at low velocities. The coefficient
f controls the shape of the transition region between pre-sliding and sliding. Between lubricated surfaces
6 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

at high interface velocities friction is largely determined by viscous forces in the lubricant. This component
of friction is denoted 2 . The final parameter, vd , permits the reduction of the influence of bristle deflection
for higher rotational velocities and ensures that the necessary conditions for passivity of the model are
satisfied.13 The total friction force, which is simply the sum of all these components, is denoted f . For each
of the five joints in the system a separate equation tracking the average bristle deflection is required. The
friction model is introduced into equation (1) as
i + C Tqi
M iq

= Qie + Qiv ,

i = 1, 2, ..., nb

(22)

C(q , t) = 0
dZj
0 |qj |
= qj
Z,
dt
S(qj )

j = 1, 2, ..., nj

and by including Fj = Fj + fj in the external force vector Qe . In this case nj is the number of joints in
the system.
The equation system represented by Equation (22) is an index 3 differential-algebraic equation (DAE). It
is an initial value problem that can be solved numerically. A multi-step backward difference formula (BDF) algorithm was chosen, in particular the Modified-Extended-Backward-Differentiation-Formula-Implicit (MEBDFI)
code of T.J. Abdulla and J. Casha was used. The code uses the modified-extended multi-step BDF methods
of Cash as detailed in Ref. 14 and Ref. 15.

III.

Experimental setup

A pilot rig for the examination of the manoeuvre rig concept has been developed. In Figure 3 the rig can
be seen as mounted in the University of Bristols 7p 5p closed-section low-speed wind tunnel.

Figure 3.

The pilot manoeuvre rig mounted in the University of Bristols 7p 5p closed section wind tunnel.

The BAe Hawk aircraft model used is a 1/16th approximate scale model with a wing span of 612mm.
It has 5 actuators on board providing actuation for a conventional set of control surfaces, ailerons, rudder,
elevator. The elevator is powered by two individual actuators which allows the left and right surfaces to be
deflected differentially, although it has not been used in this way.
The compensator has a cruciform configuration (Figure 1). Its four wings have a symmetric aerofoil
profile (NACA0018) and an individually actuated full-length 25% chord flap. The deflection of each of these
flaps is directly measured with a magnetic encoder. The total span of the compensator is 700mm. It was
sized to singularly provide enough rolling moment to produce a steady roll of the rig at a wind speed of
15m/s.
a This

can be freely obtained from http://www.ma.ic.ac.uk/ jcash/IVP software/itest/mebdfi.f (Retrieved 1 February 2009).

7 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The arm of the rig is made from a 30mm diameter steel tube. This was selected after a detailed trade-off
study was completed. More detail on this arm and the reasons for selecting it can be found in Ref. 16.
The manoeuvre rigs two gimbals are manufactured from aluminium and all the allowable axes of motion
are instrumented with potentiometers. Internal stops in the 3-DOF gimbal prevent the aircraft model from
hitting the tunnel walls. When the potential exists for large amplitude motions a wire restraining system is
attached from behind the compensator to the tunnel walls for extra protection.
Telemetry from- and control signals to the model and compensation device are provided wirelessly. This
is necessary to allow unrestricted motion in arm roll and model-yaw and to avoid spurious damping caused
by cables running across joints. It also allows control and monitoring of the rig in real-time and in particular
the potential for real-time feedback control of the rig, for the prototyping of control laws.
On board the Hawk and compensator a PIC microprocessor controls the moving surfaces and gathers
data from the 2-DOF gimbal in the case of the Hawk, and the four encoders in the case of the compensator.
Using a microprocessor gives much flexibility to the system. It enables the recording of the data read times
and also the time of control inputs. When it comes to the data reduction stage this means that one can
consider the data independently of the wireless transmission delay and other processing delays. However,
any real-time control of the system will still suffer from these delays.
A DSPACE real-time data acquisition system is used to gather data from the model and gimbals. For
the cases presented in this work the measurement frequency is 80 Hz (The short period frequency for the
Hawk is approximately 1.2 Hz).

IV.

Friction model parameter estimation

To reduce the computational burden during aerodynamic parameter estimation, the parameters of the
friction model are estimated in a wind-off condition following the techniques proposed in Ref. 17. The technique involves applying a low frequency sinusoidal torque to each joint separately, to obtain the relationship
between the friction force and the joint velocity. The models seven parameters can then be obtained by
examining a graphical representation of this relationship. Here, the low frequency torque was achieved using
a system of springs and masses and the installed potentiometers were used to obtain the necessary data. The
setup is shown in Figure 4(a). Due to the somewhat low-tech method used to generate the input, accurate
determination of these parameters directly from the graph was impossible. Instead a two-step procedure
was followed: basic estimates were first obtained from the experimental friction-velocity graph and then
an optimisation technique was used to refine the parameters further to obtain the correct angular position
graph. This was performed using several different spring stiffnesses and inertia combinations to give more
confidence to the parameters. The identified parameters for the model-pitch gimbal are presented in Table 2. This resulting model displays acceptable behaviour and, as seen in Figure 4(b), the dissipative effects
of friction have been captured.
Table 2. Identified friction model parameters for the model pitch gimbal

Fs
1.95 103

Fc
1.89 103

V.

f
95.6

vd
0.10

0
9.37

1
4.88 105

2
4.33 104

Longitudinal dynamics estimation

To verify the manoeuvre rig concept it must be shown that useful data can be collected from the rig.
1
A suitable starting case is a programme to identify a longitudinal model of the 16
scale Hawk aircraft.
To do this the rig is initially configured in a one degree-of-freedom model-pitch mode, followed by a two
degree-of-freedom model-pitch and rig-pitch mode.
Two test cases, one for each configuration, are presented. The input to the model elevator is a 3-21-1 step input with a period of 0.28s. This is one third of the expected short period frequency of 1.2Hz.
The amplitude of the input was chosen so that the angle of attack half amplitude was in the region of
approximately 4 degrees. For the two-degree of freedom case, a doublet with a period of 1s was used as an
input to the compensator horizontal surfaces.

8 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

40

Simulated
Experimental

Pitch joint angle (degrees)

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

10

12

14

16

Time (seconds)

(a) Friction
setup.

characterisation

(b) Friction characterisation test on the model-pitch gimbal. The

fitted model is also plotted.
Figure 4.

The aerodynamic model to be fitted is of the form:

c
+ CLe e
2Vt
1
C2
CD = CD0 +
eAR L
c
c
= CM 0 + CM ( 0 ) + CM
+ CM q q
+ CM e e
2Vt
2Vt
CL = CL0 + CL ( 0 ) + CLq q

CM

(23)

For both the Hawk and compensator, their respective centres of gravity are the reference points for all their
associated forces and moments.
The equations of motion of the two cases can be derived from the 5-DOF mathematical model by adding
more constraints. More specifically, all terms involving the y-direction: translation and roll and yaw rotations
are forced to zero. The independent coordinates of the test cases presented can easily be identified and
therefore it is a relatively simple matter to substitute the constraints into the equation system to return an
ordinary differential equation.
The time-domain based filter-error method9 was used to estimate the parameters in the aerodynamic
model given by Equation (23). It was used because it takes into account process and measurement noise
so it should provide better estimates of the models in the presence of noise due to turbulence. It was
hoped that this would lead to an improvement on the previous experience of a similar rig with the output
error method.8 The data are smoothed using a robust locally-weighted scatter-plot smoother with a span
of 40 before performing parameter estimation. Additionally, the wind tunnel velocity was measured for
these tests and used as an input. On the Hawk model the actual deflections of the control surfaces are not
measured and it has been found that the response of the servos is nonlinear.8 The servos have previously
been characterised18 and a simple model of the servo response derived. This model, containing delay and rate
limiting, was applied as a pre-processing step on the input data before it was used to estimate aerodynamic
parameters.
The experimental traces and simulated values obtained from the 1-DOF pitch-only test are shown in
Figure 5. As one can see a reasonable agreement is achieved. The coefficients obtained in this case are
compared to the previous estimates in Table 3. The previous estimates were derived from tests performed
with the same model but in a different wind tunnel and on a different test rig. Another setup difference is
the new wireless system which removes the spurious damping from the previous wired system but increases
the pitch inertia. Friction was also neglected in the previous estimates. Given the differences and reasonable
agreement achieved, the new estimates shown in Table 3 provide better evaluation of the aerodynamic model
parameters.
9 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Model Pitch (deg)

1-DOF Model Pitch

10

Model Pitch Rate (deg/s)

10

40

12

Sim

Exp

20
0
-20
-40
0

10

12

10

12

Elevator (deg)

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1

Figure 5.

6
Time (seconds)

1-DOF wind tunnel test at 20 m/s.

A feature of this rig is the ability to estimate the longitudinal dynamics of the aircraft model that involve
heave and pitch. This test is the result of a 3-2-1-1 step input to the Hawk model and a doublet input to
the compensator model. The traces from this test are shown in Figure 6. Once again a linear aerodynamic
model has been fitted to the data and the same model used for the compensator. In this case the fit is less
satisfactory. It is noticeable that the CM terms for the 1-DOF test are different to those of the 2-DOF test
and the results for CLq and CM q are larger in magnitude than expected. The reason for this is unclear at
this stage and is under investigation. As reported by other experimenters,6 the Hawk model has a large
response in heave and although the inertia of the arm tends to suppress this somewhat, it results in a large
angle-of-attack at the compensator. This will cause the lift force from the compensator to fall off due to
stall. A more detailed modelling of this effect is planned. The resulting coefficients are tabulated in Table 4
together with the data that was previously obtained for the Hawk.
Table 3. Identified aerodynamic parameters from 1DOF pitch-only test. Only the dominant parameters
are shown.

Parameter
CM 0
CM
CM q + CM
CM e

Old Estimate
0.05
0.75
6.78
1.26

New Estimate
0.037
0.52
4.36
1.31

10 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Model Pitch

2-DOF Model Pitch and Rig Pitch

10
0
-10

Rig Pitch

60
40
20
0
-20
-40

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sim

40

Exp

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20
25
Time (seconds)

30

35

40

50
0
-50

Compensator
Elevator

Elevator

Rig Pitch
Rate

10
0
-10

Model Pitch
Rate

5
0
-5
0

Figure 6. 2-DOF model-pitch and rig-pitch (heave) wind tunnel test at 20 m/s. In this figure angles are measured in
degrees and rates in degrees per second.

VI.

Velocity vector roll

A major capability advantage of the proposed rig over other rigs of this type is the ability to perform a
velocity-vector roll. Tests illustrating this capability have been performed. The traces from a velocity vector
roll demonstration are presented in Figure 7. In this particular case the compensator control surfaces are
used to push the aircraft into a rolling motion and then fixed at a slightly lower deflection. A continual
rolling motion results. The fluctuations in roll rate are due to the mass imbalance in the rig itself. This is a
function of the current rig design and is to be eliminated in future. As the c.g. of the Hawk model is below
the pivot point, the model is also not properly balanced. This means that the model pitches to its stops
under high roll rates.

VII.

3-DOF roll, pitch and yaw

Figure 8 shows the traces from a 3-DOF test. The three axes used are roll, model-pitch and -yaw. The
traces show the response of the Hawk model subject to a long slow elevator input. Previously documented
limit cycles in the region of 5 and above 12 angle of attack are clearly visible. What is also noted is the
large yaw departure at the onset of the upper limit cycle. Previous tests have identified a loss of yaw control
at this position most likely due to the fuselage wake blanking the vertical tail.8 It must be noted that due
to the mass distribution of the rig, this yaw departure may not occur in a freely flying aircraft as it may be
preceded by a roll departure.

11 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 4. Identified aerodynamic parameters from the 2-DOF model- and

rig-pitch test. Note that the previous estimate of CL derivatives was
derived from static tests.

Parameter
CL0
CL
CLq
CLe
CD0
CM 0
CM
CM q + CM
CM e
0

VIII.

Hawk Model
Old Estimate New Estimate
0.14
0.52
3.14
4.85

14.38

1.39
0.13
0.041
0.05
0.063
0.75
0.57
6.78
21.58
1.26
3.25
0.022
0.064

Compensator
New Estimate
0
6.61
75.34
1.694
0.043
0
2.16
26.74
0.77
0

4-DOF sway, roll, yaw and pitch

To achieve a bank-to-bank snake-like motion the rig is configured in a 4-DOF mode containing, roll, sway,
model-pitch and -yaw. This should allow the estimation of some of the lateral-directional derivatives and an
investigation of the dutch roll mode. A characteristic of these tests is a large amplitude, multiple-DOF limit
cycle. With all surfaces set to zero deflection the rig and model are stable at non-zero roll, sway, pitch, and
yaw angles. With the exception of model-pitch, the fact that these angles are non-zero is most likely due to
model and rig misalignment. From this steady position, shown in the first 5 seconds of Figure 9, with all
other surfaces unchanged, a 3-2-1-1 input is applied to the Hawks rudder. This leads to oscillations that
grow into a larger limit cycle oscillation. The onset of this limit-cycle can also be triggered by an input to
the compensator yaw surfaces (not shown). This limit cycle is thought to be due to a rig-model coupling
with the offset Hawk model c.g. and not due to any particular aerodynamic instability with the Hawk model.
More investigation is, however, needed.

IX.

Conclusion

The proposed 5-DOF manoeuvre rig allows a large set of aircraft manoeuvres to be performed in the
controlled environment of a wind tunnel. The rig mechanism aims to reproduce free-flight aircraft motions
as closely as possible within the confines of a horizontal wind tunnel and provide remote radio control and
data acquisition for the aircraft model. A mathematical model describing the dynamics of the rig has been
presented together with modifications to account for friction in the gimbals. A pilot rig has been fabricated
and experiments undertaken in a variety of different rig configurations. A linear model of the longitudinal
dynamics of the rig has been fitted to data from 1- and 2-DOF tests. A reasonable fit is achieved in both
cases. The rigs capability for manoeuvres using more degrees of freedom is also demonstrated, in particular
continuous velocity vector roll at high rotation rates. The 3-DOF and 4-DOF case presented uncovered
previously unseen but not unsuspected departure dynamics and limit cycle oscillations of the Hawk model
and rig system, which will be investigated in the future.

Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (ZACS-2006-356).

12 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

-2000
-4000
-6000
0

10

15

20

25

10

15

20

25

10

15

20

25

10

15

20

25

10

15
Time (seconds)

20

25

200
0
-200
-400
-600

Model Pitch

Roll Rate

Roll angle

2-DOF Roll and Model Pitch

10
0
-10
-20

Aileron

18
16

Compensator
aileron

14
0
-10
-20
-30

Figure 7.
2-DOF Roll and model-pitch wind tunnel test at 20 m/s. Angles are measured in degrees and rates in
degrees per second. The Hawk elevator is kept steady during this test.

Angle of Attack

Slow Elevator Ramp 25m/s

20
10
0

Large amplitude limit-cycle

-10

Small amplitude limit-cycle

50

100

150

200

50

100

150

200

50

100

150

200

50

100

150

200

Angle (degrees)

Yaw

10
0
-10

Roll

2
0
-2
-4

Elevator

15
10
5
0
-5

Time (seconds)

Figure 8.
3-DOF test at a wind tunnel speed of 20m/s. Two previously documented pitch
limit cycles19 are clearly evident.

13 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

10
0
-10
20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

0
5

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30
40
Time (seconds)

50

60

30
20
10
0

Rudder

Rig Sway

Model Pitch

10

Model Yaw

0
8
6
4
2
0

Compensator
Rudder

Angle (degrees)

Roll angle

4-DOF Result

10
0
-10

0
-5
5
0
-5

Figure 9.

4-DOF wind tunnel test at 15 m/s.

14 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

References
1 Cosentino, G. B., Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis Success Stories of X-plane Design to Flight Test, Tech.
Rep. TM-2008-214636, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, May 2008.
2 Greenwell, D. and Goman, M., Wind Tunnel Simulation of Combat Aircraft Manoeuvers, 21st ICAS Congress, No.
ICAS-98-3.9.2, Melbourne, Australia, September 1998.
3 Dean, J. P., Morton, S. A., McDaniel, D. R., Clifton, J. D., and Bodkin, D. J., Aircraft Stability and Control Characteristics Determined by System Identification of CFD Simulations, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and
Exhibit, No. AIAA 2008-6378, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 2008.
4 Gatto, A. and Lowenberg, M. H., Evaluation of a Three-Degree-of-Freedom Test Rig for Stability Derivative Estimation,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2006, pp. 17471762.
5 Bergmann, A., Huebnerb, A., and Loeser, T., Experimental and numerical research on the aerodynamics of unsteady
moving aircraft, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 44, 2008, pp. 121137.
6 Carnduff, S., Erbsloeh, S., Cooke, A., and Cook, M., Development of a Low Cost Dynamic Wind Tunnel Facility Utilizing
MEMS Inertial Sensors, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, No. AIAA-2008-196, Reno, NV, January 2008.
7 Goman, M. and Khrabrov, A., State-Space Representation of Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Aircraft at High Angles
of Attack, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1994, pp. 11091115.
8 Kyle, H., An investigation into the use of a Pendulum Support Rig for aerodynamic modelling, Ph.D. thesis, Department
of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, 2004.
9 Jategaonkar, R. V., Flight Vehicle System Identification, A Time Domain Methodology, Vol. 216 of Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA Inc., 2006.
10 Shabana, A. A., Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Cambridge University Press, New York, 3rd ed., 2005.
11 Canudas de Wit, C., Olsson, H.,
Astr
om, K. J., and Lischinsky, P., A New Model for Control Systems with Friction,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 40, No. 3, March 1995, pp. 419425.
12 Olsson, H., Astrm, K. J., Canudas de Wit, C., Gfvert, M., and Lischinsky, P., Friction Models and Friction Compensation, European Journal of Control, Vol. 4, December 1998, pp. 176195.
13 Barabanov, N. and Ortega, R., Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Passivity of the LuGre Friction Model, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 45, No. 4, April 2000, pp. 830832.
14 Cash, J. R. and Considine, S., An MEBDF Code for Stiff Initial Value Problems, ACM Transactions on Mathematical
Software, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1992, pp. 143155.
15 Hairer, E. and Wanner, G., Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems,
Springer-Verlag, second revised ed., 1996.
16 Pattinson, J., Lowenberg, M. H., and Goman, M. G., A Dynamic Rig for the Wind Tunnel Evaluation of Novel
Flying Vehicles, RAeS Autumn Aerodynamics Conference, The Aerodynamics of Novel Configurations Capabilities and Future
Requirements, Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, October 2008.
17 Kermani, M., Patel, R., and Moallem, M., Friction Identification in Robotic Manipulators: Case Studies, Proceedings
of the 2005 IEEE Conference on Control Applications, Toronto, Canada, August 2005.
18 Davison, P. M., Developing, modelling and control of a multi-degree-of-freedom dynamic wind tunnel rig, Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, 2003.
19 Davison, P. M., Lowenberg, M. H., and di Bernardo, M., Experimental Analysis and Modeling of Limit Cycles in a
Dynamic Wind-Tunnel Rig, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2003, pp. 776785.

15 of 15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics