Spring 2003 16.61AC2-7 Elevator (1 elevator down - stick forward) See very rapid response that decays quickly(mostly in the first 10 seconds of the a response) Also see a very lightly damped long period response(mostly u, some y, and very little a). Settles in >600 secs e Predicted steady state values from code 14.1429 m/s u(speeds up 0.0185 rad a(slight reduction in AOA) -0.0000rad/sq 0.0161radb 0.0024rady Predictions appear to agree well with the numerical results Primary result is a slightly lower angle of attack and a higher sDee Predicted initial rates of the output values from code -0.0001m/s2 0.0233 rad/s a 1.1569rad/s2 0.0000rad/s6 0.0233rad/s All outputs are at zero at t=0, but see rapid changes in a and q Changes in u and y(also a function of 0) are much more gradual-not as easy to see this aspect of the prediction Initial impact Change in a and q(pitches aircraft) Long term impact Change in u(determines speed at new equilibrium conditionSpring 2003 16.61 AC 2–7 Elevator (1◦ elevator down – stick forward) • See very rapid response that decays quickly (mostly in the first 10 seconds of the α response) • Also see a very lightly damped long period response (mostly u, some γ, and very little α). Settles in >600 secs • Predicted steady state values from code: 14.1429 m/s u (speeds up) -0.0185 rad α (slight reduction in AOA) -0.0000 rad/s q -0.0161 rad θ 0.0024 rad γ – Predictions appear to agree well with the numerical results. – Primary result is a slightly lower angle of attack and a higher speed • Predicted initial rates of the output values from code: -0.0001 m/s2 u˙ -0.0233 rad/s ˙α -1.1569 rad/s2 q˙ 0.0000 rad/s ˙ θ 0.0233 rad/s ˙γ – All outputs are at zero at t = 0+, but see rapid changes in α and q. – Changes in u and γ (also a function of θ) are much more gradual – not as easy to see this aspect of the prediction • Initial impact Change in α and q (pitches aircraft) • Long term impact Change in u (determines speed at new equilibrium condition)