Open Access

Curvilinear Approach to Landing

Jacek Pieniążek
Jacek Pieniążek
 and 
Piotr Cieciński
Piotr Cieciński
   | Mar 13, 2024
Transactions on Aerospace Research's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: research article
Published Online: Mar 13, 2024
Page range: 1 - 18
Received: Nov 04, 2022
Accepted: Jan 08, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/tar-2024-0001
Keywords
© 2024 Jacek Pieniążek et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1.

Standard fixed wing aircraft approach
Standard fixed wing aircraft approach

Fig. 2.

Airplane in a steady-state turn
Airplane in a steady-state turn

Fig. 3.

Landing phases (A) top view, (B) side view. AA, aiming area; AP, aiming point; DP, decision point.
Landing phases (A) top view, (B) side view. AA, aiming area; AP, aiming point; DP, decision point.

Fig. 4.

General structure of the aircraft landing control system
General structure of the aircraft landing control system

Fig. 5.

The image of the aircraft model of motion realised in Simulink.
The image of the aircraft model of motion realised in Simulink.

Fig. 6.

Approach trajectory with different initial states.
Approach trajectory with different initial states.

Fig. 7.

Aircraft CG height during landing (0 – proper flare, 0.6, 1.2 – delayed flare initialisation, height deviation 0.6 m and 1.2 m appropriately, -0.6 – too early flare initialisation, height deviation −0.6 m). CG, centre of gravity.
Aircraft CG height during landing (0 – proper flare, 0.6, 1.2 – delayed flare initialisation, height deviation 0.6 m and 1.2 m appropriately, -0.6 – too early flare initialisation, height deviation −0.6 m). CG, centre of gravity.

Fig. 8.

Wheel normal forces during landing (A) proper flare, (B) delayed flare (0.6 m), (C) delayed flare (1.2 m), (D) early flare (-0.6 m).
Wheel normal forces during landing (A) proper flare, (B) delayed flare (0.6 m), (C) delayed flare (1.2 m), (D) early flare (-0.6 m).

Fig. 9.

Aircraft attitude (left) and velocity (right): case (7, 0).
Aircraft attitude (left) and velocity (right): case (7, 0).

Fig. 10.

Aircraft bank angle (left) and ground velocity (right): cases as in Table 1 comparison.
Aircraft bank angle (left) and ground velocity (right): cases as in Table 1 comparison.

Fig. 11.

Aircraft CG height during landing (condition as in Table 1). CG, centre of gravity.
Aircraft CG height during landing (condition as in Table 1). CG, centre of gravity.

Fig. 12.

Horizontal view of the aircraft trajectories.
Horizontal view of the aircraft trajectories.

Fig. 13.

Wheel normal forces during landing with side wind. (A) – right side wind, (B) – left side wind
Wheel normal forces during landing with side wind. (A) – right side wind, (B) – left side wind

Fig. 14.

Wheel normal forces during landing with side wind with delayed flare. (A) – right side wind, (B) – left side wind
Wheel normal forces during landing with side wind with delayed flare. (A) – right side wind, (B) – left side wind

Test cases.

Test case Side wind [m/s] Head wind [m/s] Wind estimator Comment
(0, 0) No No Yes Active but unnecessary
(0, 7) 7 0 Yes
(0,−7) −7 0 Yes
(7, 0) 0 7 Yes Head wind decrease GS on approach last segment
(−5,0) 0 −5 Yes Back wind increases GS on approach last segment
(0, 7*) 7 0 No Inactive wind estimator causes no prediction of wind effect in control algorithm
(0, −7*) −7 0 No
eISSN:
2545-2835
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Engineering, Introductions and Overviews, other, Geosciences, Materials Sciences, Physics
Journal RSS Feed