Examples of Flight Vehicle System Identification

C-160: Aerodynamic Data Base

DO-328: Proof of Match

Phoenix: RLV

X-31A:
High Angle of Attack Modeling
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Rotorcraft:
High Bandwidth Models

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/1

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/2

General Concept of Aerodynamic Model Identification

High speed
regime

Landing
gear

Stall approach
and stall

Ramp door

Single
engine

Normal Flight
regime

Airdrop

Take-off
landing

Ground
effect
Ground
handling

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Engine

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/3

Typical Flight Test Program for System Identification (I)

Test Case: C-160 Transall
0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Mach No.

S
16
0

KC
A

KC
A
14
0

12
0K
CA

S
KC
A
100

KC
A

FL 260

80

Altitude

FL 300

FL 160

5
19

A
KC

0
23

A
KC

7
27

A
KC

FL 80
FL 20
100

150

Elevator 3-2-1-1

Elevator pulse

Short Period

Phugoid

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

200
Bank angle

Level Turn Maneuver

250

300

True Airspeed (Kts)

Aileron/Spoiler

Rudder Doublet

Bank to Bank
Maneuver

Dutch Roll

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Thrust Doublet

Examples/4

Typical Flight Test Program for System Identification (II)

Test Case: C-160 Transall
No
of Flights

Test Purpose

Flight
Hours

Check Flight Test Instrumentation

Envelope Expansion with Trailing Cone

1,5

Calibration of Airdata System

8,5

14

System Identification and Model Validation

(4 Altitudes, 5 Speeds, 37 Configurations)

42,5

Identification of Ground Effects

22 Stall Maneuvers with 5 Configurations

Ground and Taxi Tests

3,5

Noise Recording in Hangar, on Runway and in Flight

7,5

Special Tests: Load Drop, Takeoff and Landing on Unprepared

Runway and Runway with Snow

30
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Flights with ~ 1000 Maneuvers and 37 configurations

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

4,5
3

78
Examples/5

C-160: High-Fidelity Simulator Data Base

Aerodynamic data base valid over
the entire operational envelope
- Nonlinear aerodynamics
- Interference and coupling effects
Identification of C-160 specific
operational characteristics
- Ramp door interference,
- air drop, etc.
Identification of dynamic stall
- Unsteady flow separation
Identification of
- Ground effect
- Landing and Take-off
- Failure states

Flight estimate of dihedral effect

-0.12
Landing
Flap

C l
-0.18
K = 40
K = 30
K = 20

-0.24
-6

K = 0

Point Identification
Multi-point Identification

0
6
Angle of Attack

deg

12

Point ID:
Single trim points
Multi-Point ID: Several trim conditions

Validation of flight estimated database

- FAA Level-D
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/6

Identification of Elevator Control Effectiveness

Test Case: Transall C-160
Effectiveness

Linear model
-6

Deflection

m/s2

Vertical
acceleration

-12
8

deg/s

pitchrate

Accounting for nonlinearity

0
-8
18

angleof
attack

-6
m/s2

Vertical
acceleration

deg

-12
8

deg/s

pitchrate
2

elevator
deflection

0
18

deg

angleof
attack

-18
0
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

10
time

20

30

deg

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/7

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (1)

Test Case: Transall C-160
Two-point aerodynamic model:
Consider longitudinal motion:
The lift and drag forces at the Wing and Tail are considered separately.
Knowing the forces the pitching moment can be computed readily:
force times lever arm
In a general case,

C L = C L 0 + C LW (t ) +
C m = Cm0

= lt / V

SH
C L H (t ) (t ) + i H + C L e e
S

lt S H
qc
C L H (t ) (t ) + i H + C L e e + C mq
W 2V
c S

Time required for the downwash to reach the Tail.

Other sources: Landing flaps; Direct-Lift-Control flaps;

Wing mounted engines, and Speed brakes
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/8

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (2)

Test Case: Transall C-160
Flight tests: f = 0, 30, 60

f = 0

Test procedure:
Starting from horizontal level flight,
apply 40% (100%) of speed brakes, hold
for some time, then retract the brakes.
Basic aerodynamic model augmented
with incremental effects:
CLSB, CDSB, CmSB
For f = 0, speed brakes work primarily
in a classical sense as a drag inducing
device.
Flight measured
Estimated
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/9

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (3)

Test Case: Transall C-160
For
f = 30 and 60,
time lag effect
increases
proportionally

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

f = 30

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

f = 60

Examples/10

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (4)

Test Case: Transall C-160
Speed brakes consists of a lower and upper
flaps on each wing;
Deflected symmetrically.
Model augmentation:
Downwash with transit time effect
Angle of attack at the tail:

H = + i H ( t ) +

and C

CS

CS ( t CS ) +

SB

( t )

are known (basic aerodynamic model)

Estimate of linearly dependent on flap deflection.

SB

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/11

Identification of Downwash Lag: Speed Brakes (5)

Test Case: Transall C-160

Augmented aero model

f = 30

f = 60

incremental effects:
CLSB, CDSB, CmSB
and
with transit time effect
SB

adequately characterizes
the Speed brake
characteristics.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/12

Modeling of Landing Gear Effects (1)

Test Case: Transall C-160
Modeling and Experimental Aspects

Neglecting Landing Gear Effects

1.2
m/s 2

Important for simulation of

take-offs and landings

ax

Longitudinal and lateral-directional

maneuvers with gear down

.0
10
deg/s
0

8000 ft and 16000 ft

120, 140 and 160 kts

-8
13
deg

Basic aerodynamic model:

Discernible deviations in
- longitudinal motion
- lateral-directional motion variables

-7
5
deg
0
8
deg
0
-8
0

20

Time

40

60

Flight measurement (C-160 Transall)

Model identification
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/13

Modeling of Landing Gear Effects (2)

Test Case: Transall C-160
Accounting for Landing Gear Effects

Modeling of Aerodynamic Effects due to LG

1.2
m/s 2

Incremental aerodynamic modeling

Longitudinal motion:
Lift, drag and pitching moment coeff.
CLLG , CDLG , CmLG
Lateral-Directional motion:
- Increased weathercock stability CnLG
- Sideforce due to sideslip CYLG

ax

.0
10
deg/s
0
-8
13
deg
0
-7
5
deg
0
8

deg
0
-8
0

20

Time

40

60

Flight measurement (C-160 Transall)

Model identification

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/14

C-160: Load Drop (4.6 t)

Neglecing Variations in Aircraft Mass
Characteristics
-8
m/s2

m/s2

-13
5
deg/s

-13
5
deg/s

-5

-5

8
deg

6
deg

-2
8
2
deg/s

2
8

Verticalacceleration
Pitch
rate

Pitch
attitude
Pitch
acceleration

Accounting for Variations in the

Aircraft Mass Characteristics

CGlocation

-8

deg/s2

-16

-16

50
%

50
%

20

20
0

Measurement
Simulation
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

10

Time(sec)

15

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

10 Time(sec) 15
Examples/15

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/16

Do-328: Stand-alone versus Integrated Models

Aircraft
Motion
Variables

Reversible
Flight Control
Pilot Input
Dynamics

Control
Surface
Deflect.

Control
Surface
Deflect.

Rigid Body
Dynamics

Aircraft
Motion
Variables

Forces

Rigid-body stand-alone

Flight controls stand-alone

Reversible
Flight Control
Dynamics

Pilot
Input
Forces

Control
Surface
Deflect.

Rigid Body
Dynamics

Aircraft
Motion
Variables

Integrated model
measured data
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

simulated data

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/17

Validation Example 1: Steady Sideslip (DO 328)

Integrated Model: End-to-end Match

Rigid-body Stand-alone

12
deg

-12
18
deg

-18
4
deg/s

-4
2
deg/s

-2
20
deg
-20

r
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

25

time

50

12
deg
-12
18
deg
-18
4
deg/s
-4
2
deg/s
-2
20
deg
-20
0

25

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

time

50

Examples/18

Validation Example 2: Normal Landing (DO 328)

High activity task:

Landing characteristics reproduced in the

database conform to the airplane.

Single maneuver:

Complete sequence as a single time segment

(starting from 200 ft AGL, flare, touch down,
derotation, and initial ground roll)
FAA: Landing phase may be split into two
(approach and derotation after touch down)

Tolerances:

No closed-loop controller
3 kt on airspeed, 10 ft on altitude
1.5 deg on pitch attitude, 2.0 deg on bank

Ground effect:

Analytical function (tanh-approximation),

Continuous transition from in-flight regime to
on-ground

Wind:

Flight card noted wind

Wind components as the difference between
measured tracking speed provided by IRS and
the true airspeed transformed in earth-fixed
coordinate system.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/19

Normal Landing
Expanded View (Touch down)

Complete Landing Phase

V

60
ft

130
kt

3 kt

90
250
ft

10 ft

h
10 ft

0
10
deg

0
8
deg

1.5 deg

2
5
deg

2 deg

1.5 deg

-5
5
deg

2 deg

-10
20
deg

-10
10
deg

-5
0
deg

-10
14

-5
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

10

Time (sec)

20

16

Time (sec)

18

Flight measured (DO 328)

Model identified
FAA AC 120-40C tolerances

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/20

Validation Example 3: Critical Engine Failure (DO 328)

150
kt

V
0
-50
300
ft

Engine failure during the critical phase of

take-off

h
0
-100
15

Response to rudder and aileron important

deg

Complete sequence as a single time

segment (stand-still, acceleration, rotation,
and climb to 200 ft)

0
-5
10
deg

No closed-loop controller

-5
30

Tolerances: 3 kt on airspeed
20 ft on altitude
1.5 deg on pitch attitude
2.0 deg on bank

deg

0
-15
10

deg

-20
4000
daN

FL ,FR

Flight measured
Model identified

left engine shut off

-2000
0
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

10

time

20

30

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/21

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/22

Experimental Aircraft X-31

What is X-31?
- First international X-System
- Technology Demonstrator

Goals
- Enhanced Maneuverability (up to 70)
- Tactical advantages through Flight
beyond the limits

New Technologies
- Thrust vector control
- Aerodynamic design
- Integrated Flight control system

Tasks

Thrust vector control

- Flight envelope expansion

- Development of Data base for
Simulation and FCS design
- Handling qualities evaluation
Dr.
Jategaonkar
FolieRavindra
Nr.23

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/23

Control Surfaces of the X-31A

Trailing
TrailingEdge
EdgeFlaps
Flaps(4)
(4)
30
30
80/sec
80/sec

Speed
SpeedBrakes
Brakes(2)
(2)
0
to
+46
0 to +46
20/sec
20/sec

Inlet
Inlet
0
0to
to-26
-26
20/sec
20/sec

Rudder
Rudder
30
30
80/sec
80/sec

Canard
Canard(2)
(2)
-70
to
+20
-70 to +20
60/sec
60/sec
Leading
LeadingEdge
EdgeFlaps
Flaps(2)
(2)
0
to
-40
0 to -40
25/sec
25/sec

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Thrust
ThrustVectoring
Vectoring
Vanes
(3)
Vanes (3)
-60
-60bis
bis+35
+35
60/sec
60/sec

Examples/24

Flight Test Program

1.4
Longitudinal motion
Longitudinal motion
High Angle of Attack
Supersonic
Landing configuration
Data conditioning
Seperate Surface Excitation

Mach number

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Angle of Attack, deg

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/25

Challenges of Flight in Post-Stall Regime

Basic aircraft is highly unstable;
Resulting from aerodynamic design.
Motion variables and controls are highly correlated;
Resulting from integrated flight control system.
Controller Suppresses the oscillatory and transient motion;
Reduces drastically the information content.
Post-Stall Maneuver with large amplitudes;
Conventional model structures inappropriate for analysis.
Determination of Air-Flow variables extremely critical;
However, necessary for Stabilization of Flight systems.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/26

Identification of controlled unstable aircraft

Measured
Control inputs

Identification
Identification
in
in open
open loop
loop

Measured
Response

Noise

Pilot

Controller
Controller

Unstable
Unstable
Aircraft
Aircraft

Problems
- Increased Modeling effort for closed loop system
- Numerical Problems in identification of open loop plant
- Feedback of measured variables introduce input noise (stochastic system)

Parameter estimation methods

- Equation error method with optional Data-Partitioning
- Filter error method for problems with Measurement and Process noise
- Extended Kalman filter
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/27

Realization of Separate Surface excitation (1)

FTB
Flutter test box
Control commands

FCC Redundancy
Management Signals
Pilot
inputs

FCC
Flight Control
Computer

Aerodynamic
Control surfaces
Thrust vector

X-31
Aircraft
dynamic

States

Sensors

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/28

Realization of Separate Surface excitation (2)

FTB
Flutter test box
Pilot
Trigger

Signal
Signal generator
generator

Control commands

FCC Redundancy
Management Signals
Pilot
inputs

FCC
Flight Control
Computer

Aerodynamic
Control surfaces
Thrust vector

X-31
Aircraft
dynamic

States

Sensors

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/29

Correlated Inputs (1)

X-31A:
Pilot Input and
Separate Surface
Excitation

pitch command

can

pilot input
pitch doublet

deg

PID command

TE

separate surface excitation (SSE)

2.5

deg
-2.5

0
35

angle of attack

deg
20
-15

canard 3211

deg

canard
-45
20

20

TV deflection in pitch deg

sym. trailing edge flaps

deg

elevator 3211

-20
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

10

15

time

20

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

-20

25
Examples/30

Correlated Inputs (2)

X-31A:
Canard
Effectiveness

can

Pilot Input
0.6
Cmcan

TE

Separate Surface Excitation

Single maneuver
Data partitioning
Windtunnel

Estimated
Windtunnel
predicted

0.4

0.2

-0.2
20

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

40
60
Angle of Attack, deg

80

20

60
40
Angle of Attack, deg

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

80

Examples/31

PID with Pilot Input -- Single Maneuver (1)

correlated state and
control variables

Derivatives that cannot be identified

independently from pilot input maneuvers

, C , e and ,

C m , C m C , C m e and C m ,

a , r and as well as p and r

C n a , C n r and C n as well as Clp and Clr

Roll Doublet

roll
command

relatively large standard

deviations and uncertainties

-1
5

angle of
sideslip

use fixed values from the X-31

database for some parameters

deg

-5

diff. trailing
edge defl.

combined roll/yaw-damping

20
deg

TV-deflection
in yaw
-20

with

20

roll rate

deg/s

* p = C + C r p
Clp
lp
lr p

r
= tan
p

for the velocity vector roll

yaw rate
-20
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

time

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/32

PID with Pilot Input (2)

Bank-to-bank maneuver at 54 angle of attack: LS and Filter error methods
1 0
d e g

1 0
d e g

0
- 5
5 0
d e g

p
r

- 5 0
2 0
d e g

d a
d r

- 2 0
2 0
d e g

- 5 0
5 0
d e g

0
- 1 0
0 .5
0

n y

- 1
.0 5
l

- 1 0 0
5 0
d e g /s 2

0
- .2

- 0 .5
1 0 0
d e g /s 2

- .0 5
.2

C n

- 5 0
0 .5

C y

- 5 0
5 0
d e g /s

0
- 5
5 0
d e g /s

r
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

1 0

tim e ( s )

2 0

0
- 5 0
0

1 0

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

tim

e ( s )

2 0
Examples/33

PID with Pilot Input (3)

Estimates of aerodynamic derivatives: LS and Filter error methods
/ra d

D ih e d r a l E ffe c t

S id e fo r c e d u e to s id e s lip

/ra d

A n g le o f a tta c k

d e g

/ra d

d e g

C o m b in e d y a w d a m p in g

A ile r o n E ffe c tiv e n e s s

/ra d

A n g le o f a tta c k
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

A n g le o f a tta c k

d e g

A n g le o f a tta c k

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

d e g
Examples/34

X-31 Database Update (1)

Dihedral Effect

Pilot Input

Single Surface Excitation (SSE)

0
1/rad
-0.1

Cl
-0.2

original data set

single maneuver
data partitioning
PID2 update

-0.3

original data set

flutter test box
PID2 update

-0.4
0

20

40

60

angle of attack, deg

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

80

20

40

60

80

angle of attack, deg

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/35

X-31 Database Update (2)

Directional Stability
0 .3
1 /ra d

0 .2
C n b
0 .1

P E r e s d t i i mc t ea
Id e n tifie
I d P e p r n e r e t d i d f ii i e c c
D a ta s e t

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

0 .8

M a c h

dt e d
d

d t t ee
u

dQ d T

p d a te

1 .2

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/36

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (1)

Reference
Mission:

Towed to establish
initial conditions
touch
down

release Phoenix
from helicopter

lift-off

Flight phases
upon release:
1) Acquisition
2) Approach
3) Flare
4) Alignment
5) Derotation
6) Rollout

ground track
altitude

Launch at
40m/s EAS
acquisition
dive

RLV
approach
path -23o

Phoenix free
flight profile
118m/s
flare

510m

touch down
71m/s
runway

6.6km

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

2.65km

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

45m x 2100m
Examples/37

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (2)

Overview and goals
Phoenix:
Flight test vehicle developed and tested within German
ASTRA program
Experimental steps towards the development of next
generation space transportation systems
Primary Objectives:
To demonstrate un-powered automatic landing of RLV
configuration
Secondary Objectives:
To generate flight validated database and representative
models (vehicle + subsystems) as developmental tool for
future applications
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/38

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (3)

Phoenix Configuration
Typical characteristics of RLV configurations (Phoenix):
Low L/D -- causes steep approach path (= 5.5)
Low achievable CL -- high landing velocity (=71 m/s)
Small wing span
-- high roll sensitivity
Aft CG position
-- statically unstable configuration
(time to double < 0.5 s)
Overall length
Span
Overall height
Mass
CG position

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

=
=
=
=
=

7.8 m (including noseboom)

3.84 m
2.56 m (retracted landing gear)
1200 kg
70 % of bare fuselage length

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/39

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (4)

Aerodynamic Database
Wind-tunnel tests:
DNW German-Dutch wind tunnel

Test program:
171 quasi-static polar curves,
25 dynamic polar with
rapid control deflections
29 polar curves in ground effect

Scaled models
and
full scale flight vehicle

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/40

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (5)

Wind-tunnel testing in August 2003
Pre-flight checks: April 2004

calibration of flow angles:

p d
p d
=
+ korr
+ offset
K qc
qc
0.8
deg

quadratic or piecewise linear

Accuracy:
AoA and AoS: < 0.5
Horizontal velocity: 0.5 m/s

0.6

Alpha-error
after linear calibration

-error nonlinear:

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-10

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

40 m/s
70 m/s
100 m/s

-5

alpha

10

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

15

20 deg

25

Examples/41

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (6)

Free flights:
Maiden flight on 8-May-2004
Repeat flight on 13-May-2004
3rd flight with Offset on 16-May-2004
Configuration:
Delta Wing, relatively low wing span
3 controls (flaperons and rudder)
Body flap and speed brake
1200 Kg
7m long
3,48 m span
Highly dynamic behavior
High bandwidth control loops

Video free flight 1:

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/42

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (7)

Aerodynamic Database
Verification and Update -- Principle
p_dot, q_dot, r_dot

Measured
AX, AY,
AZ,
p, q, r,
pdyn
Measured
dero, delo,
dari, deli,
dr, dbf,
dsb,
p, q, r,
al, be

AX_cg, AY_cg, AZ_cg

X, Y, Z, L_cg, M_cg, N_cg

Flight
CX, CY, CZ
CLX, CMY, CNZ

X, Y, Z, L_ac, M_ac, N_ac

Windtunnel Database
(V31.txt)

WT-Prediction
CX, CY, CZ
CLX, CMY, CNZ

SysID
Corrections
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/43

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (8)

Flight derived and WT predicted aero coefficients
0.03

CX
CX

ZA03

ZA06

0.01

ZA05

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

0
dCX

-0.01

-0.03

-0.02

-0.06
0.03

ZA03

ZA06

0.02

ZA05

0.015
CY
CY

ZA03

0.01
dCY

0
-0.015

0
-0.01

-0.03

-0.02

ZA03

ZA06

0.1

ZA05

0.05
CZ
CZ

dCZ

-0.25

0
-0.05

-0.5
4

x 10

-0.1

-3

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

2
CLX
CLX

dCLX

-2

-3

-4

x 10

0
-1

x 10

-2

-3

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

x 10

-3

CMY
CMY

dCMY
-6

0
-2

-12
4

x 10

-4

-3

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

2
CNZ
CNZ

x 10

-3

1
dCNZ

0
-2

0
-1

-4
0

50

100

t in s

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

150

-2
0

50

100

150

t in s

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/44

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (9)

Flight derived and WT predicted longitudinal force coefficient
0.03
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

0.02

0.01

flight measurements
flight measurements
flight measurements
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel

Total CX

Pre-flight ADB

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

Flight data

-0.04

-0.05

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

0.2

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

0.25

Examples/45

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (10)

Flight derived and WT predicted vertical force coefficient
0
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

-0.05
-0.1

flight measurements
flight measurements
flight measurements
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel
wind-tunnel

-0.15

Total CZ

-0.2

Rough order of
discrepancies:
Pre-flight ADB CZ: 9-10%

-0.25
-0.3

Cm: < 3%

-0.35

CD: ~10% Nonlinear

Flight-derived

-0.4
-0.45
-0.5

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

0.2

0.25

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/46

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (11)

Aero model update (In-Air)
CZ = CZ 0 + CZ + CZ q
CX = CX 0 + CX + CX q

q
Lref V
q
Lref V

+ CZ bf bf
+ CX sb sb

CMY = CM 0 + CM + CM e e + CM sb sb
12 Parameters CZ(), CX() and Cm() are estimated to
reduce the deviations between flight measurements and
WT-predictions.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/47

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (12)

Flight derived and updated database aero coefficients
0.03

CX
CX

ZA03

ZA06

0.01

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

0
dCX

-0.03

-0.01

-0.06

-0.02

0.03

ZA03

ZA06

0.02

ZA05

0.015
CY
CY

0.01

dCY

0
-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

-0.03
0

ZA03

ZA06

0.1

ZA05

0.05
CZ
CZ

-0.25

dCZ

0
-0.05

-0.5
4

x 10

-0.1

-3

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

dCLX

0
-1

-2
-4

-3

2
CLX
CLX

x 10

x 10

-2

-3

ZA03

ZA06

x 10

-3

ZA05
2

CMY
CMY
dCMY

-6

0
-2

-12
4

x 10

-4

-3

ZA03

ZA06

ZA05

-3

2
CNZ
CNZ

x 10

dCNZ

0
-1

-2

-2

-4
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

50

100

150

50

in s
AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. t 2006

100

150

Examples/48

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (13)

Flight derived and Updated database
vertical force coefficient
0
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

-0.05
-0.1

flight measurements
flight measurements
flight measurements
wind-tunnel + Updates
wind-tunnel + Updates
wind-tunnel + Updates

-0.15

Total CZ

-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
-0.45
-0.5

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

0.2

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

0.25
Examples/49

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (14)

Flight derived and Updated database (Continued)
0.03
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

0.02
0.01

Delta CZ versus AoA

without and with update

Delta CZ

0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0.03

ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

-0.05
0.02
-0.06

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

0.2

0.25
0.01

Important Inferences:
- component due to pitch rate in lift and
drag is not adequately accounted for.

Delta CZ

- lift generated in flight is higher

0
-0.01
-0.02

-0.03

- basic longitudinal force coefficient for

clean configuration underestimated,

-0.04

- impact of speedbrakes overestimated.

-0.06

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

-0.05

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

0.2

0.25

Examples/50

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (15)

Flight derived and WT predicted In-Air + Landing Gear
0.01
ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

In-Air

Landing Gear

0.005

Delta CX

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

0.2

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

0.25
Examples/51

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (16)

Aero model update: In-Air + Landing Gear-Effects)

CX = CX 0 + CX + CX q

CZ = CZ 0 + CZ + CZ q

q
Lref V

q
Lref V

+ CX s b sb + CX LG LG

+ CZ b f bf + CZLG LG

CMY = CM 0 + CM + CM e e + CM s b sb + CM LG LG

In-Air updates fixed from initial 50 s maneuver

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/52

Phoenix: Reusable orbital glider (17)

Aero model update (In-Air + Landing Gear-Effects)
0.01

ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

Delta CX

0.005

Delta CX versus AoA

without and with update

-0.005

0.01

-0.01

0.05

0.1
0.15
Angle of attack (rad)

0.005

0.2

Delta CX

-0.015
0

Landing Gear
Aero effect

0.25

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015
0

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

ff-n1
ff-n2
ff-n3

0.05

0.1

0.15

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

0.2

0.25

Examples/53

This page is left intentionally blank.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/54

Rotorcraft Modeling (1)

High Fidelity Simulation
State Space Models

Integrated Approach to Rotorcraft Modeling and Simulation

SID Models

SIM & SID Models

Derivative models

Advanced integrated
approach

Linear/NL aerodynamic

Generic model

Extensive flight data

for point-model ID
and validation

Augmented with
parametric submodels

Stability & Control

analysis and
control system design

Flight data for submodel ID and global

model validation

System Identification

System Simulation &

Identification

Classical SID approach

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Nonlinear aerodynamic

SIM Models
Classical SIM approach
Generic models based on
modular elements
Nonlinear aerodynamic
Flight data only for
model validation
Simulation, performance
And vehicle design

System Simulation

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/55

Rotorcraft Modeling (2)

SID: based on classical 6 DOF motion
rigid-body, small excursions: linear model
large excursions NL derivatives
States:
Inputs:
Outputs:

x = [u v w p q r ]T

u = [ lon lat ped col ]T

y = [a x a y a z u v w p q r p& q& r&]T

Example:
EC-135,
60 kts forward speed

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/56

Rotorcraft Modeling (3)

SID: based on classical 6 DOF motion
Example: EC-135, 60 kts forward speed
- Gauss-Newton method
- concatenate several dynamic multistep inputs as well as frequency
sweeps with longitudinal, lateral, collective, and pedal inputs

~
N = N0 + Nu u + Nv v + Nw w + N p p + Nq q + Nr r
+ N lon lon + N lat lat + N ped ped + N col col
+ N v v + N r r + N ped ped + N ped ped
+ N lon lon + N lon lon
1st and 2nd row: linear derivatives
3rd and 4th row: a and b dependencies
weathercock stability parameter Cn (NV) for +/-ve side slipping
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/57

Rotorcraft Modeling (4)

SID:
classical 6 DOF motion
Example: EC-135,
60 kts forward speed

0.3
rad/s

-0.5
0.3
rad/s

0
-0.3
0.3

Model predictive capability:

- Pedal and lateral inputs
- low-frequency models
- Flying qualities investigations

rad/s

0
-0.3
0.2
rad

0
-0.2
0.3
rad

0
-0.3
75
%

lat,
ped

35
0
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

10

20

time

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

30

40

Examples/58

Rotorcraft Modeling (5)

High bandwidth models:
In-flight simulation: Explicit Model Following Control Design:
Based on feed forward regulation, for more accurate mode control
Model
Inversion

Model of
Helicopter
Dynamics

System
Identification

Model
Validation
Required
Response

Pilot

Command
Model
Control
Law

Model of -1
Helicopter
Dynamics
Feedforward

Controller
Input

PIController

Analysis
of Flight
Test Data

Actual
Helicopter
Dynamics

Helicopter
Response

Feedback

Response Error
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/59

Rotorcraft Modeling (6)

High bandwidth models:
Extension of 6DOF model through additional time delay:
- easier to deal with; no difficulties in parameter estimation
- not suitable for model following control:
(inversion of time delay amounts to time lead not realizable
Extension of 6h rotor degrees of freedom:
1) implicit first-order approximation of the main rotor
2) explicit equations for the rotor degrees of freedom
Basic equation for roll response can be written as:
p& = L p p + L p control

Eq. 12.45

step input results in a step response in the roll acceleration

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/60

Rotorcraft Modeling (7)

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation
First order approximation of main rotor:
based on high correlation between the flapping motion of the rotor tip
path plane (lateral and longitudinal flapping) and the body-fixed
rotational (roll and pitch) accelerations.
Correlation between roll acceleration and lateral flapping
(rigid rotors and high hinge offset):
Eq. 12.46

p& = Lb1 b1

L b
1
&
control
b1 =
b1 p +

Eq. 12.47

where b1 is the lateral flapping, control the control input at the blade root,
and b a flapping time constant.
This coupled differential equation indicates that a step into the control input
leads to a first order response of the rotor itself coupled with the body response
driven by the rotor flapping.
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/61

Rotorcraft Modeling (8)

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation
Differentiating (12.46), substituting (12.47) and then using again (12.46)
leads to a second order differential equation for rotor/body motion:

Lb1 L b
1
&
&p& = Lb1 b1 =
control
p& Lb1 p +

Eq. 12.48

Which can be equivalently formulated as:

~
~
~
( p&& ) = L p& p& + L p p + L + L p control

Eq. 12.49

~
where L() denote the new set of lateral system parameters.
Thus, either the two first order equations (12.46) and (12.47) are now used to
model the roll motion and lateral flapping, or depending on the application in
the control system design the equivalent second order equation (in roll rate p),
Eq. (12.49), can be used for system identification.
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/62

Rotorcraft Modeling (9)

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation:
The derivatives appearing in Eq. (12.49) are not the same as those in the
classical rolling motion equation of the rigid-body motion.
L p Lb1 L b
Lp
1
~
~
~
L p& = , L p =
= Lb1 , L p =
=

Thus, when we use Eq. (12.49) for parameter estimation purposes, the classical
parameters gets scaled through the flapping time constant and the flapping
effects appear indirectly through these scaled parameters.
Incorporation of these second order models in the parameter estimation is little
tricky, because the estimation programs require models postulated as first order
differential equations. This is elegantly done by treating p& and q& as the state
variables, leading to a state vector given by:

x = [u v w p p& q q& r ]T
compared to that for pure rigid-body: x = [u v w p q r ]T
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/63

Rotorcraft Modeling (10)

Extended model formulation: Summary
Conventional first order

Extended second order

- rigid body only -

- rigid body & first order rotor-

p& = Lp p + L (t )

p& = Lbb
b + L (t )
&
p
b=

Equivalent second order rigid body

&&
p = L% p& p& + L% p p + L% (t )
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/64

Rotorcraft Modeling (11)

High bandwidth models -- implicit first-order approximation :
The main advantage of this approach is that the extended model implicitly
represents dynamics of the rotor degrees of freedom as a first order system.
Together with the 8th order state vector of the rigid-body motion defined
earlier, above approximation of the rotor coupling in the pitch and roll leads to
a 10th order model, covering a wider frequency range. As rotor dynamics are
implicitly modeled, the time delays are significantly reduced to the pure
influence of the actuator dynamics.

High bandwidth models -- Explicit rotor degrees of freedom:

Considering the blade flapping motions in terms of the tip path plane
variables, the states of the rigid-body motion are extended by:
x = [a b a a& b& a& ]T
a

where a1 and b1 denote the longitudinal and lateral flapping, and a0

the coning motion, each of which is modeled as a second order system,
leading to an extended model with nine degrees of freedom.
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/65

Rotorcraft Modeling (12)

Extended Model Structure Approach
State Matrix
.
u
.
v
.
w
.
p
.
q
.
r
.

Control
Matrix

States
u
v

FUSELAGE

w
p

rigid body

body/rotor
coupling

.
.
a

Controls

TR

ROTOR

a1

b
1
.
.
.

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

rotor / body
coupling

a1

rotor

b
1
.
.
.

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/66

Rotorcraft Modeling (13)

BO 105 Time Histories (Linear Simulation and Flight Data)
10
lateral %
stick
-10

Control Input

6 DoF Rigid Body

9 DoF Rigid Body + Rotor

0.3
roll rad/s
rate

roll
rate

0.3
rad/s

-0.3

-0.3

2.0
roll
rad/s 2
acc.

2.0

-2.0

roll rad/s2
acc.
0

time

s 10

Flight Data
6 DoF Rigid Body
9 DoF Rigid Body + Rotor

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

-2.0
.015
lateral rad/s
flapping
- .015

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

time

s 10

Examples/67

Rotorcraft Modeling (14)

BO 105 Time Histories - Quality Control
6 DoF Rigid Body Roll Acceleration

9 DoF Rigid Body/Rotor Roll Acceleration

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/68

Rotorcraft Modeling (15)

BO 105 model validation in frequency domain

Magnitude

Generic
NL model

Rigid-body 6 DOF

dB
0

9 DOF with
rotor dynamics

Boundaries of
unnoticable dynamics

-10
45
deg

Phase

Ratio of roll rate responses

10

9 DOF with
rotor dynamics

Rigid-body 6 DOF

Generic
NL model

-90
0.3

Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Frequency

rad/s 10

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/69

Rotorcraft Modeling (16)

Rotor Wake Modeling
Accurate Prediction of Off-axis Response
- At hover and at low speeds;
a long standing problem
- asymmetrical vortex compression
and dilation act on the induced
velocity field.

Pure Hover

- Gyroscopic behavior leads to

strong cross- coupling effects
due to wake distortion
- Complex models based on geometrically
prescribed or free wake formulation
with discrete vortices; or equivalent
vortex ring/sheet formulation.
- Simpler models based on local
phenomenon -- Parametric extensions
for the dynamics of the inflow
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

Pitching motion in Hover

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/70

Rotorcraft Modeling (17)

Rotor Wake Modeling
Parametric extension of Pitt and Peters dynamic wake model:
1
=c
M & + L
144424443

1 1
&
K p ( p s )
L
+

K q ( q &c )

Theoretical estimates of
wake distortion parameters:

Pitt & Peters Inflow dynamics

1444444444424444444444
3
Inflow + Wake distortion dynamics

M : Apparent mass matrix associated with the

acceleration terms from momentum theory
L : gain matrix, (= [0, s, c]T) the inflow ratio
describing the first harmonic terms
c (= [cT, c1, cm]T): rotor load coefficients wrt rotor thrust
and aerodynamic pitch and roll moment,

: main rotor rotation speed

Kp and Kq: The wake distortion parameters for
longitudinal and lateral distribution of the
induced velocity.

The last term on the RHS is the parametric term that

feeds back the total roll and pitch rates of the rotor
tip path plane wrt to the surrounding air to the
induced velocity distribution over the rotor disk.
Estimate Kp and Kq
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

( = V H / R )
.

VH: forward speed in m/s,

: main rotor rotation speed in rad/s,
R: rotor radius in meter

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/71

Rotorcraft Modeling (18)

Flight case #1
PitchRate

Rotor Wake Modeling:

Simulation fidelity with

Theoretical and flight
Identified WD parameters:

with theoretical
WD-parameters

0
with flight
identified WD
parameters

-20
-30

RollRate

Hover:

Flight case #2

20
deg/s

30
20
deg/s
0

Longitudinal
Input

-20
2
deg
0

LateralInput

-3
4
deg
2
0
-1
20
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

25

time

30

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

35
Examples/72

Rotorcraft Modeling (19)

Rotor Wake Modeling:
Hover:
Off axis response without (i.e. inflow dynamics only) and with flight
identified WD parameters
20
deg/s

Pitch
Rate

Inflow Dynamics

20
deg/s

10

Inflow and Wake

Distortion

10
0

-10

-10
Flight Data
Simulation

-20
60

64

time
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

68

-20
60

64

68

time

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/73

Rotorcraft Modeling (20)

classical issue often faced in

modeling applying system
identification methods:
estimated parameters do not represent
the wake distortion phenomenon which
mainly occurs at hover and at low
speeds, rather they account for some
other unmodeled effects, for example
those resulting from rigid blade
formulation as assumed in the present
investigations.
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

PitchRate

0
without PWD

-10

RollRate

Estimates do not conform to the

wake prediction theory (they
should be roughly zero).

Flight case #2
with PWD

20
deg/s
0
-20
-40
-1
deg

Longitudinal
Input

Kp = 1.1; Kq = 1.6

Flight case #1
15
deg/s

-3
-5

LateralInput

Rotor Wake Modeling:

Forward speed of 40 m/s:

4
deg
2
0
0

time

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

10

Examples/74

References (1)
Jategaonkar, R. V.,
Flight Vehicle System Identification: A Time Domain Methodology,
Volume 216, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series
Published by AIAA Reston, VA, Aug. 2006, ISBN: 1-56347-836-6
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=1447
Hamel, P. G., and Jategaonkar, R. V., Evolution of Flight Vehicle System Identification,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1996, pp. 9-28.
Hamel, P. G. and Jategaonkar, R. V., The Role of System Identification for Flight Vehicle Applications Revisited, RTO-MP-11, March 1999, Paper No. 2.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Fischenberg, D., and von Gruenhagen, W.,
Aerodynamic Modeling and System Identification from Flight Data Recent Applications at DLR,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2004, pp. 681-691.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Mnnich, W., Fischenberg, D., and Krag, B. Identification of Speed Brake, Air-Drop,
and Landing Gear Effects from Flight Data, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 34, No. 2, March-April 1997,
pp 174-180.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Mnnich, W., Fischenberg, D., and Krag, B. Identification of C-160 Simulator Data Base
from Flight Data, Proceedings, 10th IFAC Symposium on System Identification, Copenhagen, Denmark,
July 1994, pp. 3.67-3.74.
Jategaonkar, R.V., Mnnich, W., Identification of DO-328 Aerodynamic Database for a Level D Flight
Simulator, AIAA 97-3729, 1997.
Mnnich, W., Jategaonkar, R.V., Database Development for Level D Simulators - Lessons Learned,
RTO SCI Symposium on System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and Flight Testing,
May 5-7, 1998, Madrid, Spain, Paper 14.
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/75

References (1)
N.N., Airplane Simulator Qualification, FAA Advisory Circular, AC 120-40C, Interim Version, Jan. 1995.
N.N., Joint Aviation Requirements - Aeroplane Flight Simulators, JAR-STD 1A, Westward Digital Ltd.,
Cheltenham, England, April 1997.
Jategaonkar, R. V., Behr, R., Gockel, W., and Zorn, C., Data Analysis of Phoenix RLV Demonstrator Flight
Test, AIAA Paper 2005-6129, Aug. 2005.
Rohlf, D., Plaetschke, E., Weiss, S., X-31A System Identification Applied to Post Stall Flight - Aerodynamics
and Thrust Vectoring, AGARD CP-548, March 1994, Paper 14.
Weiss, S., Friehmelt, H., Plaetschke, E., and Rohlf, D., X-31A System Identification using Single Surface
Excitation at High Angles of Attack, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 485-490.
Rohlf, D., Direct Update of a Global Simulator Model with Increments via System Identification,
RTO SCI Symposium on System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and
Flight Testing, May 5-7, 1998, Madrid, Spain, Paper 28.
Tischler, M.B., System Identification Methods for Aircraft Flight Control Development and Validation,
NASA TM 110369, Oct. 1995.
Kaletka, J., von Grnhagen, W., System Identification of Mathematical Models for the Design of a Model
Following Control System, Vertica, Pergamon Press, Oxford, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1989, pp. 213-228.
Anon, Rotorcraft System Identification, AGARD, AR280, Sept. 1991.
Hamel, P.G., Kaletka, J., Rotorcraft System Identification - An Overview of AGARD FVP Working Group 18,
AGARD CP-552, 1995, Paper 18.
N.N., Helicopter Simulator Qualification, FAA Advisory Circular, AC 120-63, Oct. 1994.
Rohlfs, M., von Grnhagen, W., Kaletka, J., Nonlinear Rotorcraft Modeling and Identification,
RTO SCI Symposium on System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and
Flight Testing, May 5-7, 1998, Madrid, Spain, Paper 23.
Dr. Ravindra Jategaonkar

AIAA Short Course: Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain, Aug. 2006

Examples/76