Majalah Ilmiah UNIKOM
Vol.9, No. 2
213
H a l a m a n
Muhammad Aria
It can be seen from the Figures 10 and
Figure 11 that when the helicopter is
operating in a wide range of its flight
envelope, the tracking performance looks
acceptable; however, large overshoot is not
avoidable.. This is shown in Tables 3 which
show the percent overshoot and settling
time for the control algorithms
Table 3. Overshoot and Settling time for
elevation and travel control
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have presents a LQR
control the elevation and travel of a
laboratory
helicopter
system.
The
performance of the algorithm is illustrated
and the results show a good performance in
term of tracking error, overshoot and
settling time.
REFERENCES
3d Helicopter Experiment
Manual
1998
Motion Primitives for Robotic
Flight Control
A Web-Based
Laboratory on Control of a Two-Degrees-
of-Freedom Helicopter
Vol 21, No 6, pp 1017-1030, 2005
Fabricio Galende Marques de Carvalho,
Adaptive Elevation Control of a Three
Degrees-of-Freedon Model Helicopter
Using Neural Networks by State and
Output Feedback,
Series in Mechatronics Vol 3, pp 106-
113, 2008
Systematic Controller
Design and Rapid Prototyping
Approximate Model Predictive
Control
for
Nonlinier
Multivarible
Systems
Hamburg
University
of
Technology Germany
Mariya
A.
Ishutkina,
Design
and
Implementation of a Supervisory Safety
Controller for a 3DOF Helicopter
at
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology, 2004
Aerospace
Plant : 3-DOF Helicopter Reference
Manual
Motion Planning and
Control of an Underactuated 3DOF
Helicopter
Robust Attitude
Control of a 3DOF Helicopter with Multi-
Operation Points
Complexity, pp 207 – 219, 2009
Model
predictive control of a 3-DOF Helicopter
System Using Successive Linearization
International Journal of Engineering,
Science and Technology, Vol 2, No. 10,
pp 9 – 19, 2010
Percentage
Overshoot
Settling
Time
(seconds)
Elevation
22.5 %
40
Travel
40 %
100