Aircraft Performance Model Development for Low SWaP UAS

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current Aircraft Performance Models (APMs) are inadequate for low SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) aircraft, leading to reduced accuracy in flight simulation and trajectory prediction, particularly for Unmanned Air Systems, due to simplifications and increased costs associated with generating accurate 6DOF APMs.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for efficiently modeling the six degrees of freedom of a fixed-wing aerial vehicle, involving data collection through controlled maneuvers and mathematical modeling to determine fuel consumption, thrust, aerodynamic forces, and inertia properties, allowing for improved accuracy and reduced costs.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Device complexity

If generic APMs are used for low SWaP UAS, then costs and complexity are reduced, but simulation accuracy and trajectory prediction precision significantly deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveAPM complexityVSAvoidtrajectory prediction accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The APM development process is segmented into distinct phases: initial generic model creation, automated flight data collection through structured maneuvers, and iterative refinement cycles. This segmentation allows the system to start with a simple model and progressively add accuracy where needed based on actual flight performance data, rather than requiring full complexity from the outset.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables the aircraft itself to generate the test data needed for APM validation and refinement through automated flight maneuvers. The aircraft performs self-tested flight patterns that automatically collect performance data, eliminating the need for external test facilities and expert intervention, thereby reducing costs while improving model accuracy specific to that aircraft type.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Measurement precision

If accurate 6DOF APMs are generated through traditional methods, then simulation fidelity and trajectory prediction accuracy are improved, but time consumption and development costs significantly increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesimulation accuracyVSAvoidAPM development time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The methodology performs preliminary automated data collection through structured flight maneuvers before final APM validation. By pre-collecting performance data across the flight envelope using automated test sequences, the system prepares all necessary information in advance, eliminating the need for time-consuming iterative testing and validation during later development stages.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

Traditional manual flight testing and expert analysis are replaced with automated flight control systems that execute predetermined maneuvers and automatically process performance data. This substitution of manual mechanical processes with automated electronic systems dramatically reduces the time required for APM development while maintaining or improving accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Ease of manufacture

If simplified APM assumptions are made for low SWaP aircraft, then model complexity and testing requirements are reduced, but aerodynamic accuracy and control precision deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemodel development easeVSAvoidaerodynamic modeling precision
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts model complexity parameters based on the specific aircraft type and available data. Rather than using fixed simplified assumptions for all low SWaP aircraft, the methodology modifies aerodynamic parameters, control surface effectiveness, and environmental factors to match actual flight characteristics, achieving both ease of implementation and aerodynamic accuracy for each specific platform.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3396487B1Computer-implemented method and system for modelling performance of a fixed-wing aerial vehicle with six degrees of freedom
Publication Date: 2019.03.13 THE BOEING CO
  • EP3396487B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3396487B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3396487B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Computer-implemented method and system for modelling performance of a fixed-wing aerial vehicle (AV) with six degrees of freedom. The system comprises a collecting unit (330) to collect data from a plurality of modelling measures and modelling maneuvers; a processing unit (340) to communicate with a collecting unit (330). The processing unit (340) further sequentially processes data sets from a plurality of modelling measures and to determine models to generate an accurate aircraft performance model (APM). Modelling measures and modelling maneuvers are designed to modify an influence on the AV of variables of a model of the AV (100) to be determined.