Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162 www.elsevier.

com/locate/oceaneng

Longitudinal stability and dynamic motions of a small passenger WIG craft


H.H. Chun *, C.H. Chang
1

Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 30 Changjeondong, Kumjeong-ku, Pusan 609-735, South Korea Received 31 August 2001; accepted 26 September 2001

Abstract The longitudinal stability characteristics of a Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effect craft are quite different from those of the conventional airplane due to the existence of force and moment derivatives with regard to height. These stability characteristics play an important role in designing a safe and efcient WIG due to its potential danger in sea surface proximity. The static and dynamic stability criteria are derived from the motion equations of WIG in the framework of small disturbance theory and discussed in this paper. The static and dynamic stability analyses of a 20-passenger WIG are conducted based on wind tunnel test data, and dynamic motion behaviors are investigated for changes in design parameters. Finally, the ying quality of the 20-passenger WIG is analyzed at cruising conditions according to the military regulations. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effect craft; Longitudinal stability; Stability derivatives; Flying quality

1. Introduction A Wing-In-Ground Effect Craft (WIG hereafter) which ies in a very high speed range near the sea surface has recently been paid much attention worldwide for future super high speed marine craft use. Because of its increased lift-drag ratio due to the ground (or sea surface) effect, the WIG may be economical compared with aircraft. Rozhdestvensky (1996) reported that based on the Russian WIG data, WIG can reach
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-51-510-2341; fax: +82-51-512-8836. E-mail address: chunahh@hyowon.pusan.ac.kr (H.H. Chun). 1 Present address: Samsung Ship Yard, South Korea.
0029-8018/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 2 9 - 8 0 1 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 9 8 - 1

1146

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

Nomenclature A, B, C, D, E, F Coefcients of the characteristic equation alt Lift curve slope of the tail wing c Reference wing chord (main wing) Drag coefcient CD Lift coefcient CL Pitching moment coefcient Cm g Acceleration due to gravity h Height of model above ground plane (measured to trailing edge of tip wing) h/c Ground clearance nondimensionlized by the reference chord length Tail wing incidence it Inertia moment about the y-axis Iy L, M, N Components of resultant moment about the x, y, z axes Length from C.G. to aerodynamic center of the tail wing lt m Mass of WIG Ratio of steady-state normal acceleration factor change to angle of na attack change p, q, r Angular velocity about the x, y, z axes T Thrust Tr Reference of moment u, v, w Velocity along the x, y, z axes Forward velocity at equilibrium Ue Tail volume VT X, Y, Z Components of resultant aerodynamic force about the x, y, z axes

Greeks a e z q n w Angle of attack Downwash angle at the tail wing Damping ratio Pitch angle Root of the speed subsidence mode Frequency

Subscripts h Differentiation with respect to the dimensionless variable, h/c u, q, w, a, w Differentiation with respect to the corresponding variable

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1147

and exceed the liftdrag ratio of aircraft in spite of relatively small aspect ratios. Unlike aircraft, as a WIG even with a xed angle of attack approaches the ground, its force and moment vary due to the ground effect. Therefore, the longitudinal stability characteristics of the WIG are quite different from that of conventional aircraft due to the existence of force and moment derivatives with regard to height. These stability characteristics play an important role in designing a safe and efcient WIG due to its potential danger in sea surface proximity. Kumar (1969), Irodov (1970), Staufenbiel (1987) and Hall (1994), conducted studies on the stability of WIG and recently, Delhaye (1997) reported that by comparing the motion equations of Irodov, Staufenbiel and Hall, these three equations are fundamentally the same as one another. Stability is a very important factor in the design of a ship and also an airplane. A lack of stability in the craft could lead to a serious accident and damage. Craft with an excessive stability (margin) may, however, be insensitive to active control. In general, the correlation between the longitudinal and lateral motions of the airplane is weak and the modes of the two motions can be treated separately. It is known that the WIG inherently possesses lateral stability since the lower wing side of a banked WIG is subject to increased lift and accordingly, resulting in the restoring moment. Therefore, most of the stability research of the WIG has been devoted to the longitudinal problem and this paper is also concerned with longitudinal stability. The aerodynamic derivatives (lift, drag and moment) of the WIG vary with height, and their behaviors are strongly non-linear. Therefore, the stability characteristics of the WIG may be quite different from those of an airplane. In order to investigate how the WIG is stable, the static stability, which considers only the moment balance by neglecting the inertia and time dependent terms, can rst be evaluated, and then the dynamic stability considering the inertia and time dependent terms can subsequently be evaluated. In this paper, static and dynamic stability conditions are derived from the longitudinal motion equations of the WIG. The sea surface variation is neglected, and the sea surface is treated as a rigid wall; thus the sea surface effect can be called the ground effect (as it will be referred to hereafter). Based on comprehensive wind tunnel test results for a 20 passenger WIG, its static and dynamic stability characteristics are analyzed, and also the dynamic motion behaviors are investigated for variations in design parameters such as cruising height, cruising speed and the moment of inertia. Finally, the ying quality of the 20-passenger WIG is analyzed at the cruising condition according to the military regulations.

2. Longitudinal static stability 2.1. Pitch stability First, it is necessary that a WIG should be stable in pitch like an airplane. An airplane is stable if, after a disturbance in pitch (usually a gust), it returns to the undisturbed position. The airplane is statically stable if the resultant moment about

1148

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

the C.G. (center of gravity) decreases the angle of attack, mathematically given as follows: Cma 0 (1)

where Cm is the moment coefcient, a is angle of attack and subscript means the differential. The notations and symbols used in this paper are all given in the nomenclature and if necessary, explanations are added in the text. 2.2. Height stability Unlike an airplane, the force and moment of a WIG varies with the change of height. Therefore, an additional static balance condition should be considered. Namely, a WIG is stable if, after a disturbance in height, it returns to the undisturbed condition. This can be mathematically expressed as follows, given by Irodov (1970) and Staufenbiel (1987): H.S. (Height Stability) CLz 0 (2)

where z is the vertical axis (positive is upwards) and CL the lift coefcient. Since the force and moment change with height for the WIG, the following derivatives can be considered. dCL dCm CLada Cmada CLzdz Cmzdz (3)

After removing da in Eq. (3) and rearranging the above equations, the following height stability equation can be derived. H.S. or, H.S. Xa Xz 0 (4) Cma Cmz CLa CLz 0

where Xa and Xz are the aerodynamic centers of pitch and of height, respectively, and the derivatives are with respect to the leading edge. This equation can be interpreted as that, in order to secure the WIG to be statically stable, the aerodynamic center of height is located upstream of the aerodynamic center of pitch.

3. Longitudinal dynamic stability As shown in Fig. 1, a body xed O xyz frame is used and O is at the C.G. The positive z is vertically downwards and O y is in the starboard direction. The longitudinal linear equations of motion for an airplane with the xed stick are given as follows:

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1149

Fig. 1. Axes, force and velocity components.

mu Xww mw Zww Iyq Mww

Xuu Zuu Muu

Xww mgq Zww M ww (Zq M qq

Xqq mUe)q (5)

The overdot denotes the time derivative. Kumar (1969), Irodov (1970) and Staufenbiel (1987), introduced the following height derivatives for the WIG in the above equation: Xh X ,Z h h Z ,M h h Xuu Zuu Muu M h Xqq mUe)q Mhh Xhh Zhh (7) (6)

Then, Eq. (5) can be written as follows: mu Xww mw Zww Iyq Mww Xww mgq Zww M ww (Zq M qq

In addition, the following kinematic condition is added: h w Ueq

(8)

Eqs. (7) and (8) can be written in state space form and can be written in matrix form as follows: Mx Ax (9)

where M is the mass matrix, A the state matrix, x the state vector (namely (u,w,q,q,h)T). In order to investigate the longitudinal stability characteristics of the WIG, the characteristic equation of the system needs to be evaluated. This can be done by taking the Laplace transform of Eq. (9), assuming the zero initial condition,

1150

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

and then by calculating the determinant of (sI M 1A), where I is the unit matrix and s is the Laplace variable. Whereas an airplane out of the ground effect is a fourth order system, a WIG craft in ground effect is a fth order system. Therefore, the characteristic equation is a fth order form: As5 Bs4 Cs3 Ds2 Es F 0 (10)

The coefcients A, B, C, D, E and F are given in Appendix A. The dynamic stability of the system can be evaluated by the RouthHurwitz criterion given as follows (see Delhaye, 1997; Gera, 1995): B 0 0 0 0 (11)

BC D

D(BC D) B(BE F)

D(BC D)(BE F) B(BE F)2 F(BC D)2 F 0

If the above criteria are satised, there is no positive real part in the roots of the characteristic Eq. (10) and then the system is stable. If the speed variation terms are neglected in the last inequality in Eq. (11), this inequality leads to the static height stability criteria as given in Eq. (4). This means that the dynamic stability cannot be met without the static H.S. Therefore, when a WIG is designed, it is important to satisfy the static H.S. rst and then consider the dynamic stability. The characteristic Eq. (10) has ve roots which can be classied into two oscillating modes which are Short Period Pitching Oscillation (SPPO) and the Phugoid, and a rst order subsidence mode. Then, the characteristic equation can be written in the following form: A(s2 2zspwnsps w2 )(s2 nsp 2zphwnphs w2 )(s nph n) 0 (12) where w is the frequency and z the damping ratio, and the subscripts sp and ph stand for SPPO and Phugoid, respectively.

4. Stability analysis of a 20 passenger WIG Shin et al. (1997) designed a 20 passenger WIG, and its aerodynamic characteristics together with some wind tunnel test results were published. Comprehensive wind tunnel tests with this craft were conducted and reported by Chun (1997). Table 1 shows the principal dimensions of this WIG, and the model tested in the wind tunnel is shown in Fig. 2. The aspect ratio of the main wing of this craft is 0.9 which is relatively small; this WIG was designed to be operated in relatively smooth waters, namely, a maximum cruising height of 0.8 m (equivalent to 0.08 c) with an operating speed of 150 km/h. The endplates (or sidedplates) are attached to the tip of the main wings as seen in Fig. 2. It is known that an S-shape for the main wing cross section is good in view of stability, particularly in close proximity to the

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1151

Table 1 Main particulars of the 20-passenger WIG Length overall Breadth overall Height overall Breadth overall Incidence angle of main wing Incidence angle of tail wing Weight Mean aerodynamic chord (c) Max cruising height Cruising speed 17.45 m 10.60 m 5.42 m 2.20 m 3.5 deg 8 deg 7.5 ton 10 m 0.08 c (0.8 m) 150 km/h

Fig. 2. Model of the 20-passenger WIG tested in a wind tunnel.

ground; thus, the main wing cross section is an S-shape. A detailed description on the craft together with experimental wind tunnel test results can be found in Chun (1997). Based on these experimental results, a stability analysis of the 20 passenger craft is carried out. 4.1. Static stability The static stability of the craft is evaluated and its result is shown in Table 2. According to Table 2, the craft is statically stable even at the limit of the cruising height of 0.08 c. This means that the craft is automatically stable below this cruising height. It can be seen that the craft becomes unstable at 0.1 c. As the height decreases, the aerodynamic center of the pitch moves backwards. The reason for this is that as the craft approaches the ground, the variation of Cma is relatively larger than that of CLa. However, as the height decreases, the aerodynamic center of the height moves considerably forwards. This is due to the fact that since the cross-section of the main

1152

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

Table 2 Analysis of longitudinal static stability of the 20-passenger WIGa C.G. position (Tr) h/c Cma CLa Cmz CLz Xa Tr Cma / CLa Xz Tr Cmz / CLz H.S.
a

0.3c h /c 0.1

0.08

0.696144 4.38886 0.34341 5.03373 0.458616 c 0.368222 c 0.09 c (stable)

0.468565 4.21926 0.256413 2.22069 0.411054 c 0.415466 c 0.004 c (unstable)

The derivatives are calculated at C.G. and are from the leading edge.

wing of the craft is S-shape, and its moment variation is known to be relatively insensitive to height change compared with that of a normal wing section, the increase of Cmz is small and the increase of CLz is very rapid in proximity to the ground. In addition, the rapid increase of CLz is partly due to the fact that the model has a lower aspect ratio with the endplates. It is known from the experimental results of Chun et al. (1996) that an increase of CLz for a wing with a lower aspect ratio with endplates in proximity to the ground is much larger than that for a higher aspect ratio wing. 4.2. Dynamic stability 4.2.1. Evaluation of stability derivatives The stability derivatives of the 20 passenger WIG are evaluated from the wind tunnel tests and shown in Table 3. All the physical quantities are derived from the experimental data, but the lift curve slope of the tail wing w.r.t. a(alt), downwash angle e, and the downwash slope angle w.r.t. a(ea) are evaluated by the method in Roskam (1979). 4.2.1.1. e, ea and alt evaluation Since the downwash is not uniform along the span of the tail wing, it is usually taken as the mean value over the tail wing for the stability derivatives. The velocity components over the tail wing can be measured by various methods (say, pitot tube, LDV etc.) for the model without the tail wing at different angles of attack. However, these components would be more or less different from those with the tail wing and it is not easy to obtain the exact velocity components on the tail surface although these approximate values can be obtained from much effort in the experimental works. Instead, if there is a veried computational method that can well predict the aerodynamic coefcients, this can be effectively used. Fig. 3 shows the lift coefcient variation calculated by VLM vs the angle of attack

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1153

Table 3 Stability derivatives of 20 passenger WIG Stability derivatives UK-style expressions h/c 0.08 Xu Xw Xq Xh CD 2CD Ue u CL CDa Negligible h CD / c Negligible CL 2CL Ue u CLa CD VTalt h CL / c VTaltea Negligible Cma VTaltlt / c h Cm / c VTaltealt /c T 1 0.5rSUe u 0.0882 0.118304 0.126232 0.1 0.0824 0.078376 0.07503

Xw Zu Zw Zq Zh Zw Mu Mw Mq Mh

0.9826 4.43296 0.745601 5.03373 0.132103 0.696144 0.585297 0.34341

0.8168 4.26046 0.74453 2.22069 0.14087 0.46856 0.58446 0.2564

Mw

0.103701

0.11058

Fig. 3.

CL vs angle of attack with different it at h / c

0.08.

1154

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

Fig. 4.

e vs angle of attack at h / c

0.08.

at h / c 0.08 with and without the tail wing. The VLM code was veried to show numerical results that agree well with experimental data for various wings in ground effect and also WIG (see Chung et al., 1998). In the gure, the tail wing angle of attack it is varied and also the lift coefcient without the tail wing is included. Since the tail wing section is symmetric, the lift should be zero for the effective tail wing angle of attack being zero. Therefore, the body angle of attack (a) at the cross points of a, b, c and d which meet with the lift curve of the craft without the tail wing is read from the gure, and the mean downwash angle can be obtained by adding it as follows: e a it This downwash angle is drawn vs the angle of attack in Fig. 4 from which ea can be derived. Similarly, e and ea at h / c 0.1 can be evaluated, and are given in Table 4 together with e and ea at h / c 0.08. Since the cruising height of the WIG is very low and the vertical position of the tail wing is relatively high, it can be understood that e and ea are relatively small. As the craft approaches the ground, alt increases very little, and e and ea are decreased a bit. By substituting the stability derivatives given in Table 4 into Eq. (10), the eigenvalues of the characteristic equation for the craft can be obtained. The dynamic perturbed motion behaviors of the craft due to cruising height, cruising speed and longitudinal moment of inertia are investigated.
Table 4 Downwash angle (e), ea and alt with variations of height h/c 0.08 0.1 e 0.664837 0.695228 ea 0.177177 0.189203 alt 4.19863 4.19262

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1155

4.2.2. Cruising height changes The eigenvalues of the system for 150 km/h and Iy 72,456 kg/m2 at two cruising heights of h / c 0.08 and 0.1 are given in Table 5 and the time responses are shown in Fig. 5. The perturbed quantity is the dimensionless pitch motion. It can be seen that there is a relatively smooth motion change in SPPO due to the cruising height variations. As the cruising height decreases, wnsp increases but zsp decreases. It is generally known that wnsp in the SPPO Mode is much inuenced by Cma. As the craft approaches the ground, Cma increases rapidly, resulting in an increase in wnsp. However, a dramatic change in Phugoid can be seen at the two cruising heights. At h / c 0.08, the motion is stable but it becomes unstable at h / c 0.1. This is due to the fact that as shown in Table 2, the static stability condition cannot be satised at this height. As the cruising height decreases, the damping ratio zph increases. This can be explained by the fact that in the ground proximity, the air trapped between the ground and the underside of the wing with the endplates acts as a spring (or air cushion), resulting in an increased damping in the Phugoid mode. 4.2.3. Cruising speed changes The eigenvalues of the system for h / c 0.08 and Iy 72,456 kg/m2 at three cruising speeds are given in Table 6 and the time responses are shown in Fig. 6. As the speed increases at the given cruising height, the damping ratio is almost unchanged but the frequency is increased for the SPPO mode. However, it can be seen that for the Phugoid mode, the damping ratio and motion frequency together increase as the cruising speed increases. 4.2.4. Moment of inertia changes The results for the three different moment of inertias are shown in Table 7 and Fig. 7 for h / c 0.08 and cruising speed of 150 km/h. It can be seen that the motion frequency and damping ratio decrease with increasing the moment of inertia.

Table 5 Eigenvalues of the system for different heights Height Mode SPPO 0.08 c 1.32134 3.18131i wnsp 3.4448 zsp 0.383575 1.2115 2.55985i wnsp 2.83206 zsp 0.42778 Phugoid 0.131638 1.4466i wnph 1.45264 zph 0.0906198 0.111827 0.309552i wnph 0.329132 zph 0.339763 0.0693 Speed subsidence

0.1 c

0.743

1156

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

Fig. 5.

SPPO (top) and Phugoid (bottom) for two cruising heights.

5. Flying quality analysis The requirement for wnph is not specied since it is varied by the cruising speed of the aircraft, as seen in the previous section. Since zph inuences the longitudinal motions when the cruising speed is changed and hence affects the pilot comfort, it should not be too small and the minimum requirement is, in general, given. The short period pitch motion is inuenced by wnsp and zsp. The minimum and maximum values for wnsp are simultaneously specied. Since the requirements for the motion frequency and damping ratio are not explicitly specied in the regulations of the

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1157

Table 6 Eigenvalues of the system for different speeds Speed Mode SPPO 150 km/h 1.32134 3.18131i wnsp 3.4448 zsp 0.383575 1.75815 4.24242i wnsp 4.5923 zsp 0.382847 2.19556 5.30337i wnsp 5.73988 zsp 0.38251 Phugoid 0.131638 1.4466i wnph 1.45264 zph 0.0906198 0.19069 1.9251i wnph 1.93452 zph 0.0985723 0.247171 2.40425i wnph 2.41692 zph 0.102267 0.06928 Speed subsidence

200 km/h

0.06933

250 km/h

0.07326

civil aircraft (FAR 23, FAR 25, JAR-VLA etc.), the design of the civil aircraft, in general, follows the military regulations. The 20 passenger WIG can be classied in Class II, Category B (see Roskam, 1985; ESDU, 1992), but for the ying quality analysis, it is assumed as Category A which is more severe than Category B. Again, the craft is a passenger carrying one, so it should be designed to satisfy the ying quality of Level I at the cruising conditions. Level I requirements for MIL-F-8785C and MIL-STD-1797A are given in Table 8. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the 20 passenger WIG at a cruising height of h / c 0.08 satises the Level I requirements. In addition, the control anticipation factor (CAP), which is 1.33 for the craft, also satises the Level I requirements. Fig. 9 shows the typical pilot opinion contours for the short period together with the value for the present craft. In conclusion, it can be evaluated that the dynamic motion behaviors of the present 20 passenger craft seem to be good.

6. Conclusions The longitudinal static and dynamic stability criteria of the WIG are discussed. Based on the wind tunnel results together with VLM code, the stability derivatives for the 20 passenger WIG are evaluated and its static and dynamic stability characteristics are investigated. The dynamic motion behaviors of the craft are also investigated by varying the design parameters such as cruising speed, cruising height and moment of inertia, and the ying quality is analyzed. It is shown that the craft seems to be good in terms of stability and dynamic motions. Stability characteristics play an important role in designing a safe and efcient WIG due to its potential danger in sea surface proximity. One of the easiest ways

1158

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

Fig. 6.

SPPO (top) and Phugoid (bottom) vs time for three cruising speeds.

in increasing the static stability and the damping ratio for the SPPO is to increase the tail wing size at the cost of the increased structural weight and the drag increase. These penalties would deteriorate the merit of the WIG concept. Therefore, it is important to design a WIG, which satises the static stability and also the dynamic motion characteristics within the ying quality limit as well as maximizing the lift drag ratio.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr. M.S. Shin, Korea Research Institute of Ship and Ocean Engineering, for allowing the use of the experimental data.

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1159

Table 7 Eigenvalues of the system for different moments of inertia Iyy Mode SPPO 72,456 kg/m2 1.32134 3.18131i wnsp 3.4448 zsp 0.383575 1.09512 2.9404i wnsp 3.13771 zsp 0.349019 0.998858 2.82969i wnsp 3.00081 zsp 0.332863 Phugoid 0.131638 1.4466i wnph 1.45264 zph 0.0906198 0.112063 1.35305i wnph 1.35768 zph 0.0825401 0.100562 1.29213i wnph 1.29603 zph 0.0775646 0.06928 Speed subsidence

100,000 kg/m2

0.06926

120,000 kg/m2

0.06925

Table 8 Level I requirements for MIL-F-8785C and MIL-STD-1797A Phugoid damping requirements Short period damping ratio limits Short period undamped natural frequency zph 0.04 0.35 zsp 1.30 w2 nsp 3.6a 0.28 na

Note

w2 nsp : CAP (Control Anticipation Factor). na

Appendix A A B 1 1 [ mMw(mUe mIy(m Zw) mZw XuZw)] Zq) mMq( m Zw) Iy(mXu XwZu

1 [mMqXu mMwUeXu mIyZh MwXuZq mMw(mUe Zq) mIy(m Zw) MwXqZu IyXwZu MqXwZu mMqZw IyXuZw MqXuZw Mu(mXq mUeXw XwZq XqZw)] 1 [ mMqZh mMwUeZh IyXuZh mIy(m Zw) mMhZq gmMwZu

1160

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

Fig. 7.

SPPO (top) and Phugoid (bottom) vs time for three moment of inertia values.

IyXhZu MqXwZu Mw(mUeXu XuZq XqZu) MqXuZw Mu(gm2 mUeXw XwZq XqZw gmZw)] E

mMhUeZw

1 MwUeXuZh MhXuZq MqXhZu MwUeXhZu [M X Z mIy(m Zw) q u h MhXqZu MhUeXwZu Mw( mUeZh gmZu) mMhUeZw MhUeXuZw Mu(XqZh UeXwZh XhZq gmZw UeXhZw)] 1 [gmMuZh gmMhZu mIy(m Zw) MhXwZu MuXhZw MhXuZw)] Ue(MwXuZh MuXwZh MwXhZu

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

1161

Fig. 8.

Control anticipation parameter and SPPO damping ratio requirements.

Fig. 9.

Typical pilot opinion contours for short period.

1162

H.H. Chun, C.H. Chang / Ocean Engineering 29 (2002) 11451162

References
Chun, H.H., 1997. Experimental studies on a 20 passenger class WIG craft. In: Report No. NAOE-R9702. Department of NAOE, Pusan National University, Korea 210 pp. (in Korean). Chun, H.H., Chung, J.H., Chung, K.H., Chang, J.H., Chang, S.I., 1996. Experimental investigations on wing in ground effect. In: Proc. of 3rd KoreaJapan Joint Workshop on Ship and Marine Hydrodynamics, Daejon, Korea., pp. 358369. Chung, K.H., Chang, C.H., Chun, H.H., 1998. A study on the performance of the wing in ground effect by a vortex lattice method. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology 12 (2), 8796. Delhaye, H., 1997. An investigation into the longitudinal stability of wing in ground effect vehicles. MSc Thesis, Craneld University, September, 78 pp. ESDU, 1992. A Background to the Handling Qualities of Aircraft, Item No. 92006. ESDU International, London. Gera, J., 1995. Stability and Control of Wing-In-Ground Effect Vehicles or Wingships, AIAA 95-0339. AIAA, USA. Hall, I.A., 1994. An investigation into the ight dynamics of wing in ground effect aircraft operating in aerodynamic ight. MSc Thesis, Craneld University, 136 pp. Irodov, R.D., 1970. Criteria of longitudinal stability of Ekranoplan. Ucheniye Zapiski TSAGI 1 (4) Moscow. Kumar, P.E., 1969. On the stability of the Ground Effect Wing vehicle. PhD Thesis, The University of Southampton, UK, 90 pp. Roskam, J., 1979. Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corp., Ottawa, KS. Roskam, J., 1985. Airplane Design. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corp., Ottawa, KS. Rozhdestvensky, K.V., 1996. Ekranoplans the GEMs of fast water transport. Trans. IMarE 109 (Part 1), 4774. Shin, M.S., Yang, S.I., Joo, Y.R., Kim, S.K., Bea, Y.S., Kim, J.H., Chun, H.H., 1997. Wind tunnel test results for eight and twenty passenger class Wing-In-Ground effect ships. In: Proc. of FAST97, Sydney, Australia., pp. 565570. Staufenbiel, R.W., 1987. On the design of stable ram wing vehicles. In: The Royal Aeronautical Society Symposium Proceedings, London., pp. 110136.

Вам также может понравиться