Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:43:54.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Handling qualities of fixed-pitch, variable-speed multicopters for urban air mobility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2021

M. Bahr Open the ORCID record for M. Bahr [Opens in a new window] ,
M. McKay ,
R. Niemiec Open the ORCID record for R. Niemiec [Opens in a new window]  and
F. Gandhi
M. Bahr*
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Center for Mobility with Vertical Lift, Troy, NY, United States of America
M. McKay
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Center for Mobility with Vertical Lift, Troy, NY, United States of America
R. Niemiec
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Center for Mobility with Vertical Lift, Troy, NY, United States of America
F. Gandhi
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Center for Mobility with Vertical Lift, Troy, NY, United States of America
*
E-mail: bahrm2@rpi.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Optimisation-based control design techniques are applied to multicopters with variable-RPM rotors. The handling qualities and motor current requirements of a quadcopter, hexacopter and octocopter with equal gross weights (5,360N) and total disk areas (producing a 287N/m $^2$ disk loading) are compared in hover. For axes that rely on the rotor thrust (all except yaw), the increased inertia of the larger rotors on the quadcopter increase the current requirement, relative to vehicles with fewer, smaller rotors. Both the quadcopter and hexacopter have maximum current margin requirements (relative to hover) during a step command in longitudinal velocity. In yaw, rotor inertia is irrelevant, as the reaction torque of the motor is the same whether the rotor is accelerating or overcoming drag. This, combined with the octocopter’s greater inertia as well as the fact that it requires 30% less current to drive its motors in hover, results in the octocopter requiring the greatest current margin, relative to hover conditions. To meet handling qualities requirements, the total weight of the motors of the octocopter and hexacopter is comparable at 13.5% weight fraction, but the quadcopter’s motors are heavier, requiring 16% weight fraction. If the longitudinal and lateral axes were flown in ACAH mode, rather than TRC mode, the total motor weight of all configurations would be nearly identical, requiring about 13.5% weight fraction for motors (compared to 7–9% weight fraction from hover torque requirements).

Keywords

Multicoptershandling qualitiesUrban Air MobilityeVTOL
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 126 , Issue 1300 , June 2022 , pp. 952 - 972
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antcliff, K., Whiteside, S., Kohlman, L. and Silva, C. Baseline assumptions and future research areas for urban air mobility vehicles, AIAA SciTech Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 2019.Google Scholar
Walter, A., McKay, M., Niemiec, R. and Gandhi, F. An assessment of heave response dynamics for electrically driven rotors of increasing diameter, 8th Biennial Autonomous VTOL Techinical Meeting 6th Annual Electric VTOL Symposium, Mesa, AZ, USA, 2019.Google Scholar
Walter, A., McKay, M., Niemiec, R., Gandhi, F. and Ivler, C. Handling qualities based assessment of scalability for variable-RPM electric multi-rotor aircraft, Vertical Flight Society 75th Annual Forum, Philidelphia, PA, USA, 2019.Google Scholar
Malpica, C. and Withrow-Maser, S. Handling qualities analysis of blade pitch and rotor speed controlled eVTOL quadrotor concepts for urban air mobility, VFS International Powered Lift Converence, San Jose, CA, USA, 2020.Google Scholar
Niemiec, R., Gandhi, F., Lopez, M. and Tischler, M. System identification and handling qualities predictions of an eVTOL urban air mobility aircraft using modern flight control methods, Vertical Flight Society 76th Annual Forum, Virtual, 2020.Google Scholar
Tischler, M., Berger, T., Ivler, C., Mohammadreza, M.H., Cheung, K.K. and Soong, J.Y. Practical methods for aircraft and rotorcraft flight control design: An optimization-based approach, AIAA Education Series, Reston, VA, USA, 2017, doi: 10.2514/4.104435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aeronautical Design, Standard, Performance, Specifications, Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, Technical Report ADS-33E-PRF, 2000.Google Scholar
Ivler, C. and Tischler, M. Case studies of system identification modeling for flight control design, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., January 2013, 58, (1), pp 1–16, doi: 10.4050/JAHS.58.012003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, W., Tischler, M.B. and Cohen, K. System identification and controller optimization of a quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle in Hover, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 2017, 62, (4), pp 1–9, doi: 10.4050/JAHS.62.042007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, K., Wagster, J., Tischler, M., Ivler, C., Berrios, M., Berger, T., Juhasz, O., Tobias, E., Goerzen, C., Barone, P., Sanders, F. Lopez, M. and Lehmann, R. An overview of the U.S. Army aviation development directorate quadrotor guidance, navigation, and control project, 2017.Google Scholar
Lopez, M., Tischler, M., Juhasz, O., Gong, A., Sanders, F., Soong, J. and Nadell, S. Flight test comparison of gust rejection capability for various multirotor configurations, Vertical Flight Society 75th Annual Forum, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019.Google Scholar
Niemiec, R. and Gandhi, F. Multi-rotor coordinate transforms for orthogonal primary and redundant control modes for regualr hexacopters and octocopters, 42nd Annual European Rotorcraft Forum, Lille, France, 2016.Google Scholar
Silva, C., Johnson, W., Antcliff, K. and Patterson, M. VTOL urban air mobility concept vehicles for technology development, Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018, doi: 10.2514/6.2018-3847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemiec, R. and Gandhi, F. Development and validation of the rensselaer multicopter analysis code (RMAC): A physics-based comprehensive modeling tool, Vertical Flight Society 75th Annual Forum, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019.Google Scholar
Peters, D., Boyd, D. and He, C.J. Finite-state induced-flow model for rotors in Hover and forward flight, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 1989, 34, (4), pp 5–17, doi: 10.4050/JAHS.34.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivler, C., Niemiec, R. and Gandhi, F. Multirotor electric aerial vehicle model validation with flight data: Physics-based and system identification models, Vertical Flight Society 75th Annual Forum, Philidelphia, PA, USA, 2019.Google Scholar
Russell, C., Jung, J., Willink, G. and Glasner, B. Wind tunnel and Hover performance test results for multicopter UAS vehicles, American Helicopter Society 72nd Annual Forum, West Palm Beach, FL, USA, 2016.Google Scholar
Duda, H. Flight control system design considering rate saturation, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 1998, 4, pp 265–275, doi: 10.1016/S1270-9638(98)80004-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrios, M., Berger, T., Tischler, M., Juhasz, O. and Sanders, F. Hover flight control design for UAS using performance-based disturbance rejections requirements, Vertical Flight Society 73rd Annual Forum, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2017.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. NDARC-NASA design and analysis of Rotorcraft, Technical Report NASA TP 218751, April 2015.Google Scholar