Mass balance vs Moment of Inertia

Mass balance vs Moment of Inertia - Neverending battle.

If you want to use my graphic outside Wikipedia, and its resolution or license doesn't satisfy you, write to me: 100px (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The radian glider took a real beating at the last crash. Although it had a 'soft' landing eventually, going through the trees was not pleasant the foamy airframe. since it wasn't covered, indentations can be seen all over the aircraft.

I made a big mistake. Once I had put the autopilot inside the canopy bay. I thought I was clever that by restoring the center of gravity line through using 2x7g lead weights at the tail of the weight. The reasoning was to minimise the amount of extra ballast by increasing the moment by the c.g. (crazy right!). But unfortunately, I didn't think of considering the inertia effect it will have on the make-up of the airframe.

For you newbies, this is what wikipedia says about inertia: Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction. In other words, it is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant linear velocity.

In other words, Inertia favourite cliche line could be: "the more things want to change, the more they should stay the same".

So with every elevator/rudder deflection, a control moment will be produced but now a resisting inertial moment (albeit transitional) will oppose such moment causing the airplane to become less responsive to control inputs. So any effort to avoid a crash, for example, by applying sudden control surface deflection (be it rudder or elevator) will be resisted by this lump of mass at the same point at which you're trying to create the restoring moment. And the rest is history.

It is at this point that when you wish you could say: "Ignorance is bliss".

Comments

Setting up the Tarot T4-3D gimbal on the Pixhawk 2.4.8 with Specktrum dx6 Gen2 toggle switch

So i took the challenge of setting up the Tarot gimbal not just for inherent stable video footage but also the flexibility of controlling it from the radio control. However, I encountered quite a few challenges which made me aware that I'm not the one only in this battle . It's quite clear that the setup of the Tarot gimbal using its own software is completely different from how it's been described in the Ardupilot/Arducopter webpage and in mission Planner. In Mission Planner and it's associated site makes one believe that it should be done through software, only to realize that in actual fact the setup is more complex than that. After two evenings of trying various combinations, I realized the getting the pixhawk Aux channels to communicate with the T4 gimbal requires the following steps: - The Pixhawk Pin9 (Aux1) needed to be activated to pass through user-chosen channel from the transmitter. For the Dx6 Gen2 it was the channel 6, which can assigned the ...

GPS Navigation Ground Test #2 - Heading Error Computation Algorithm

This one is going to be quite short. Yesterday was the turn of the heading error algorithm to be tested. This heading error is calculated based on the heading the between two waypoints and heading measurement from the GPS module. This error will then be fed into a the roll controller as an input for roll command to reduce it to zero. But for the roll controller to work accordingly, the input must be right and within certain bounds. Same as the previous ground test, waypoints were loaded unto the autopilot and serial debug data was monitored using my Asus TF101 Tablet. It's worth saying that I managed to get serial data output straight from the LINUX command line . So the command line integration with VIM is complete. So it takes approximately under 10sec to upload and start debugging data of the autopilot. Sweet! Anyway, it was found that the GPS accuracy should be considered at 10-12m. Anything less than that and you'll be running for trouble. That is not a real conc...

Unmanned aircraft and crop duster fly too close

An aircraft separation incident between an unmanned aerial vehicle and crop duster highlights the challenges with having a diverse mix of aircraft operating in the same airspace. On 12 September 2013 the pilot of an Ayres S2R commenced aerial agricultural spraying operations on a property near Horsham, Victoria. At about the same time, the operator of a UAV, Sensefly eBee 178, arrived at ‘Iluka Echo’ (Echo) mine site to conduct an aerial photography survey of the site. After completing his pre-flight preparation and risk assessment of the operation, the operator heard an aircraft operating about 1 – 1.5 km away on a neighbouring property.

Search This Blog