Choice of Interceptor Aerodynamic Lifting Surface Location based on Autopilot Design Considerations

Interceptors operate at wide range of operating conditions in terms of Mach number, altitude and angle of attack. The aerodynamic design caters for such wide operating envelope by appropriate sizing of lifting and control surfaces for meeting the normal acceleration capability requirements. The wide range of operating conditions leads to an inevitable spread in center of pressure location and hence spread in static stability. The performance of control design is a strong function of the aerodynamic static stability. The total operating envelope can be bifurcated into statically stable and unstable zones and the aerodynamic lifting surface location can be used as a control parameter to identify the neutral stability point. During the homing phase lesser static stability is desirable for good speed of response, hence the lifting surface location needs to be chosen based on the capability of control to handle instability. This paper analyses the limitations of autopilot design for the control of an unstable interceptor and brings out a method to identify the optimum aerodynamic lifting surface location for efficiently managing static margin while satisfying the control limitations and homing phase performance. This provides an input on the most appropriate lifting surface location to the aerodynamic designer during the initial CFD based aerodynamic characterisation stage itself, before commencing the rigorous wind tunnel based characterisation.

[1]  F. William Nesline,et al.  How Autopilot Requirements Constrain the Aerodynamic Design of Homing Missiles , 1984, 1984 American Control Conference.

[2]  Houria Siguerdidjane,et al.  Three-Axes Missile Autopilot Design: From Linear to Nonlinear Control Strategies , 2001 .

[3]  Shuxing Yang,et al.  Three-loop autopilot of spinning missiles , 2014 .

[4]  Zhang Yue,et al.  Three-loop autopilot design and simulation , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation.

[5]  Chang-Hun Lee,et al.  Connections Between Linear and Nonlinear Missile Autopilots via Three-Loop Topology , 2016 .

[6]  Paul Zarchan,et al.  A classical look at modern control for missile autopilot design , 1982 .

[7]  Jong-Han Kim,et al.  Augmented Three-Loop Autopilot Structure Based on Mixed-Sensitivity H∞ Optimization , 2017 .

[8]  Curtis P. Mracek.  Tactical Missile Autopilots , 2015, Encyclopedia of Systems and Control.

[9]  Fan Junfang,et al.  Analysis and improvement of missile three-loop autopilots , 2012 .

[10]  Paul Zarchan,et al.  Tactical and strategic missile guidance , 1990 .

[11]  Karl J. Åström,et al.  Limitations on control system performance , 1997, 1997 European Control Conference (ECC).

[12]  D. Brett Ridgely,et al.  Missile Longitudinal Autopilots: Comparison of Multiple Three Loop Topologies , 2005 .

[13]  Paul Zarchan,et al.  A combined optimal/classical approach to robust missile autopilot design , 1979 .

[14]  Yu-ming Bo,et al.  Optimization of three-loop missile autopilot gain under crossover frequency constraint , 2016 .