Stability and Control Characteristics of a Small-Scale Model of an Aerial Vehicle Supported by Two Ducted Fans
An investigation has been made to determine the stability and control characteristics in hovering and in forward flight of a free-flight model representing a type of vertical-take-off-and-landing aircraft which utilizes two fixed ducted fans as its sole source of lift and propulsion. The model, having fans 28 inches in diameter, was considered to be approximately one-third the size of a full-scale aircraft. Control moments for most of the hovering tests and all the forward-flight tests were provided by remotely controlled compressed-air jets at the sides and ends of the model. For one brief phase of the hovering investigation a system of vanes in the duct slipstreams was substituted for the jets as a means of roll control. During the forward-flight tests, the model was flown with both the tandem and side-by-side duct arrangements. In hovering the model exhibited strongly divergent oscillations about the pitch and roll axes. The pitching oscillation of the tandem configuration was of a fairly long period and was not particularly difficult to control; the rolling oscillation, however, was of a relatively short period and was extremely difficult to control. Both oscillations could be completely eliminated by the addition of a sufficient amount of artificial damping. The control moments produced by the vane-type roll control system were weak and were accompanied by a side force of appreciable magnitude and undesirable direction. In forward flight the model required an undesirably large nose-down tilt angle for equilibrium at any appreciable speed. A vane was placed transversely in the slipstream of the forward duct of the tandem configuration in an attempt to reduce this tilt angle. The vane was effective in reducing the tilt angle but apparently caused an increase in the power requirements and in the angle-of-attack instability. Without the vane, a forward speed of 30 knots (full scale) required a nose-down tilt angle of about 300. A powerful pitch control moment was required not only to maintain the trim attitude but also to 2 overcome the effects of instability with angle of attack. Less pitch control moment was required for the tandem configuration than for the side-by-side configuration at any given forward speed. The instability in roll increased with forward speed. No forward speeds in excess of about 20 knots (full scale) were achieved until the artificial damping in roll and the yaw control moment were increased appreciably above values which had proved satisfactory for hovering flight.