An Integrated, Modular Simulation System for Education ... - Cal Poly

oth models. The two state space models in the lateral axis provided the same responseImpulse ResponsePitch Angle1Amplitude120State Space6 DOF0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Time (sec.)Figure 21 Theta to Elevator - Phugoidfor a step input. The 6 DOF in rudder to beta (figure 22) exhibits a similar differencefrom the state space models as the pitch response. Figure 20. shows that the 6 DOF modelis less damped and a higher frequency than the state space models. The mapping of theforces reduce the drag for a sideslip condition by mapping the drag to a drag and a pureside force. The result is a higher frequency than the model without the mapping and lessdamping than the unmapped model. The Roll rate to aileron (figure 22) response matchedthe state space the closest. The roll angle response also exhibits the same difference innatural frequency and reduced damping compared to the state space model. Both modelsshow the same under damping and the washout of the angle due to the dihedral effect inthe wings. Figure 23. shows the characteristic washout of the roll angle due to thedihedral effect. Without flight test data further refinement of the model is not possible.The model has demonstrated the correct behavior that an conventional airplane woulddisplay to the control inputs, with the time constants approximately correct and dampingclose to a linear model. The final verification used the World up viewer to display anexternal view of the model to view the coupled responses. The same step input was62