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