초록 ▼

A structured singular value (.mu.) analysis method of computing flutter margins has robust stability of a linear aeroelastic model with uncertainty operators (.DELTA.). Flight data is used to update the uncertainty operators to accurately account for errors in the computed model and the observed ran

A structured singular value (.mu.) analysis method of computing flutter margins has robust stability of a linear aeroelastic model with uncertainty operators (.DELTA.). Flight data is used to update the uncertainty operators to accurately account for errors in the computed model and the observed range of aircraft dynamics of the aircraft under test caused by time-varying aircraft parameters, nonlinearities, and flight anomalies, such as test nonrepeatability. This .mu.-based approach computes predict flutter margins that are worst-case with respect to the modeling uncertainty for use in determining when the aircraft is approaching a flutter condition and defining an expanded safe flight envelope for the aircraft that is accepted with more confidence than traditional methods that do not update the analysis algorithm with flight data by introducing .mu. as a flutter margin parameter that presents several advantages over tracking damping trends as a measure of a tendency to instability from available flight data.

대표청구항 ▼

[ What is claimed is:] [1.]1. An on-line method for robust flutter prediction in expanding a safe flight envelope for an aircraft to define an envelope of safe flight conditions, comprising two parts, a first part comprising the steps of(a1) generating a computer model of said aircraft,(a2) computin

[ What is claimed is:] [1.]1. An on-line method for robust flutter prediction in expanding a safe flight envelope for an aircraft to define an envelope of safe flight conditions, comprising two parts, a first part comprising the steps of(a1) generating a computer model of said aircraft,(a2) computing flutter margins of said aircraft from said computer model using a singular value .mu. to define a first safe flight envelope and optionally using a well known traditional method for defining a second safe flight envelope used in double checking the safety of said first safe flight envelope defined by its computed flutter margins,(a3) if computed flutter margins thus double checked are found to define an envelope of safe flight conditions, or an optional method of defining a safe flight envelope is not used, proceed to a second of said two parts, d second part comprising in-flight steps of,(b1) taking said aircraft to a safest point within said first safe flight envelope at a flight condition, F, and measuring flight data at said present condition F, including dynamic pressure defined by parameters comprising altitude and air speed;(b2) compute a predicted flutter point, F.sub.p, at a higher dynamic pressure than at said condition F using an algorithm based on said flight data and said singular value .mu.;(b3) determine dynamic pressure difference between dynamic pressure of said aircraft at said present flight condition F and at said predicted flutter point F.sub.p ;(b4) if said dynamic pressure difference is large, take said aircraft from present flight test condition to a new flight test condition F.sub.i =F+.DELTA..sub.F, where .DELTA..sub.F are the changes to parameters of flight condition F comprising altitude to take said aircraft to a new flight condition F.sub.p from flight condition F, to incrementally expand testing said first safe flight envelope and repeat steps b1, b2, b3 and b4; but if said dynamic pressure difference is small, declare the last predicted flutter margin F.sub.p as a point on said aircraft's expanded safe flight envelope, and repeat steps b1-b4 until sufficient flight conditions within said first safe flight envelope have been tested to expand margins thereof; reby a robust expanded flight envelope is determined for said aircraft using said singular value .mu. and said in-flight steps.