AIAA AVIATION Forum 10.2514/6.

2022-3413
June 27-July 1, 2022, Chicago, IL & Virtual
AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum

Trajectory Energy Management Systems for eVTOL

Vehicles: Modeling, Simulation and Testing

Markus Wilde1, Brian Kish2, Emils Senkans3 and Tahir Kanchwala4

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, 32901, USA

Seumas M. Beedie5, Caleb M. Harris6, Johannes A. Verberne7, Cedric Y. Justin8,

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

Juan Merkt9
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

The rise of electric aircraft propulsion methods, the increased use of automated and
integrated flight control systems, and the envisioned use of personal Vertical Takeoff and
Landing (VTOL) vehicles in urban environments lead to novel technical and regulatory
challenges for aircraft manufacturers, certification authorities and operators. The
combination of electric propulsion, where energy reserves and powertrain performance are
highly sensitive to the environment, and VTOL, where the aircraft cannot simply glide to an
emergency landing, generates the need for Trajectory Energy Management (TEM). The TEM
task involves the manipulation of flight and propulsion controls to achieve a planned flight
profile. The TEM system must provide the pilot or automated control system with guidance
cues to achieve a planned flight profile, to maintain an energy-optimal trajectory, to avoid
deviations from the flight plan causing increases in energy and power consumption, and to
mitigate the risk of energy completion. As the pilot must manage both the energy source and
flight dynamics energy state, the TEM system must provide sufficient information to the pilot,
so that the pilot can perform the mission. This research is intended to define some
requirements for energy management such that the pilot can safely accomplish an intended
profile and land with enough energy reserves. These requirements must be defined based on
prototype algorithm development, simulation results, and flight test data.

I. Nomenclature

AAM = Advanced Aerial Mobility

AC = Advisory Circular
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
DOD = Depth of Discharge
eCTOL = electric Conventional Takeoff and Landing
EPU = Electric Propulsion Unit
eSTOL = electric Short Takeoff and Landing
eVTOL = electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing
FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation

1
Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace, Physics and Space Sciences, AIAA Member
2
Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace, Physics and Space Sciences, AIAA Associate Fellow
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace, Physics and Space Sciences, AIAA Student Member
4
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace, Physics and Space Sciences, AIAA Student Member
5
Graduate Research Associate, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, AIAA Member
6
Graduate Research Associate, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, AIAA Member
7
Graduate Research Associate, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, AIAA Member
8
Research Engineer II, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, AIAA Member
9
Associate Professor, Aeronautical Science Department

Copyright © 2022 by Florida Institute of Technology and Georgia Institute of Technology.

Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 IFR = Instrument Flight Rules
OAT = Outside Air Temperature
SOAP = State of Available Power
SOC = State of Charge
SOE = State of Energy
SOH = State of Health
SOP = State of Power
RPM = Revolutions per Minute
TEM = Trajectory Energy Management
UAM = Urban Air Mobility
VFR = Visual Flight Rules

II. Introduction
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

The field of electrical Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) underwent a significant growth in the past decade.
Many established aircraft manufacturers along with new start-ups have come forward with unique vehicle designs to
participate in this emerging market. Although some designs are still only in a conceptual phase, flying prototypes
exist.
It can be argued that the recent progress in the field of passenger carrying, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) eVTOL
vehicles was first spearheaded in 2015 through a series of NASA On-Demand Mobility workshops [1]. Following this
effort research by Uber and commercial feasibility studies showed optimistic near-term predictions for the field of on-
demand UAM, arguing that UAM vehicles can be much faster in urban environments, compared to ground
transportation [2].
Several prototypes have been demonstrated in flight and are maturing in development and testing. However, before
any of these vehicles see commercial flight, they must be certified by the civil aviation authorities. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in Europe are
currently in the process of developing appropriate certification procedures. Instead of focusing on creating new
certification requirements, both agencies are investigating the option of adjusting present certification standards for
light aircraft [3, 4]. In particular, the FAA considers adjusting part 23 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR 23) with special conditions to allow for certification of eVTOL UAM vehicles. It has been determined that
14 CFR 23 already covers most of the applicable requirements, requiring the least percentage of the rules sections to
be adjusted [5].
One of the hurdles preventing the use of 14 CFR 23 for certification of eVTOL vehicles is the issue of energy
margins and the associated trajectory power and energy management [3]. It must be ensured at all times that the vehicle
has sufficient power available to perform critical flight maneuvers, sufficient energy stored in its batteries to safely
complete a mission with adequate margins, and that the information about power and energy requirements and
availability is continuously communicated to a pilot or a control system. If the estimate of the power required to
maintain a flight state or the energy required to safely complete a maneuver exceeds the available reserves, the pilot
must be warned and provided with a suggested plan of actions. With the manufacturers including such trajectory
energy management systems as part of the airworthiness certification process, the certification authorities need tools
to verify statements made by the aircraft manufacturers pertaining to achievable flight performance, range and safety
margins, in order to assist them in the flight safety assessment and airworthiness certification process.
The research presented in this paper has the objective develop validated performance estimation and in-flight
safety assessment tools for pilot decision making at different levels of automation. The end goal is to define means of
compliance and associated guidance with an emphasis eVTOL aircraft.

III. The Quest for Equivalent System Safety

The high levels of trust the public, both flying and uninvolved, has towards aviation in the United States depends
in large parts on a reasonable assurance that aircraft typically do not fall from the sky. Otherwise, home owners and
city officials would not consent to aircraft flying overhead, and passengers would be hesitant to set foot onto an
aircraft. One of the principal means to ensure that aircraft do not fall from the sky is to ensure that the pilot is at all
times aware of the trajectory energy state of the aircraft. The pilot must understand how much energy the aircraft
requires to complete its mission, how much power it requires to complete mission elements such as e.g. climbing over

2
 an obstacle, and how much energy reserves the aircraft holds. Developing this understanding is a major part of flight
planning, with the goal of arriving at the primary destination with reserves sufficient to complete a holding pattern or
to divert to an alternate destination. Once underway, the aircraft must inform the pilot about the remaining energy
reserves and the instantaneous power available, which is a major driver for cockpit instrumentation requirements.
Therefore, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) specifically address the topics energy margins and display
systems. Title 14, Part 91 in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 91) specifies minimum fuel
requirements. For fixed wing airplane operations under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), Part 91, paragraph 151 (§91.151)
states that a flight may not start unless the airplane has sufficient fuel reserves to reach the first intended destination
and to fly on at normal cruising speed for at least 30 minutes (daylight) or 45 minutes (night) after that. Rotorcraft
operating in VFR must not begin a flight unless they carry sufficient fuel to reach the first intended destination and
then fly at normal cruising speed for at least another 20 minutes. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) requirements are stated
in §91.167: Airplanes must be able to reach the first intended destination, fly from that airport to an alternate
destination, and fly on after that at normal cruising speed for 45 minutes. Rotorcraft must have sufficient fuel reserves
to complete the flight to the first intended destination, divert to an alternate airport, and continue flight after that for
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

30 minutes at normal cruising speed. Pilots must plan the flight accordingly.
How do pilots know how much energy, i.e. fuel, is available to them during flight? Advisory Circular AC 23-17C
states that the primary instrument for fuel remaining shall be the fuel quantity indicators. The fuel gauge indicating
the usable quantity of fuel in each tank is regulated in §23.1337, §23.2430, and §91.205. The fuel quantity indicator
must be calibrated in appropriate units and be clearly marked to indicate what units to use. Each fuel quantity indicator
must also be calibrated to read “zero” if the fuel remaining in the tank equals the unusable fuel supply.
As the frequent use of the term “fuel” implies, the current regulations regarding energy margins and display
systems are focused on combustion-based propulsion. Combustion of petroleum-based fuels has many disadvantages,
most importantly the emission of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, along with noise. But it also has a major
advantage: energy density. Compared to Avgas or Jet-A with an energy density of around 12,000 Wh/kg [6], battery-
electric systems have between 100 – 265 Wh/kg for lithium-ion batteries, 500 – 600 Wh/kg for lithium-sulfur batteries,
and around 600 Wh/kg for lithium-air batteries [7]. Even the higher power conversion efficiency of battery-electric
power trains of 90 – 95% vs. 40 – 50% for combustion engines cannot compensate for that. Hence, a 400 lb lithium-
ion battery pack stores about as much extractable energy as 20 lb of Avgas. At the same time, the combustion powered
aircraft gets lighter over time, giving it some extra power and energy margins towards the end of its mission. Battery-
electric aircraft maintain their weight.
Batteries have another negative side: they age and the extractable power changes nonlinearly over their operating
envelope. Although fuel density and the efficiency of internal combustion engines or turbine engines change somewhat
with changes in temperature, 15 gallons of fuel always contain the same energy as 15 gallons of fuel. This holds true
when the aircraft rolls off the factory floor and it still holds true decades later. As will be discussed in Section IV
below, the energy and power extractable from a battery depend on its cycle life, temperature, charge/discharge rate,
cutoff voltage and other factors, essentially making it impossible to measure the remaining energy level without
considering the current state of the battery, its operational history, the current environment, and even the environmental
history. Therefore, a battery system must be compared to a rubber fuel tank changing its volume between missions
and during a mission, feeding fuel through a hose with changing diameter. In addition, power electronics like inverters,
voltage converters, motor controllers, etc. can dramatically change their power losses with temperature.
The complexities of the electric “fuel” system then meet the unique ways some of the new electrically powered
aircraft are planned to be operated. The most extreme are electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) vehicles
used in Urban Air Mobility (UAM). Operating as “air taxis”, such vehicles will spend a disproportionally high time
in vertical flight “on the propellers” than is common in today’s helicopter operations. During vertical flight, they can
consume up to 10 times more power than in horizontal flight “on the wing”.
In combination of these factors, many eVTOL vehicles will have mission times that are shorter than the flight time
reserves specified in current regulations. Even for battery-electric Conventional or Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft
(eCTOL / eSTOL), adhering to the regulations may result in short-legged aircraft without a real mission.
Therefore, the existing regulations based on static flight time reserves may have to be replaced with regulations
recognizing the reduced energy storage capacity and dynamic nature of electric powertrains. At the same time,
sacrificing public safety for the sake of innovation cannot be acceptable, as the first high-profile crash of an eVTOL
vehicle in a dense urban area may cut down a nascent industry and may cause severe damage to the public perception
of aviation safety overall.
New regulations establishing an equivalent level of safety are needed. Those regulations must be based on a
detailed understanding of the characteristics of electric powertrains and on the operational requirements of Advanced
Aerial Mobility (AAM). The regulations may make use of high-powered on-board computers running predictive

3
 trajectory power and energy models. They may also prescribe conservative, test based methods. Whichever methods
or algorithms are used in such Trajectory Energy Management Systems, the goal is to close the feedback loop to the
pilot or remote operator in order to make them aware of the instantaneous and long-term power and energy state of
the aircraft.

IV. Understanding Electric Propulsion

The energy reserves on a combustion powered vehicle are simply presented in terms of fuel volume or weight,
with the power consumption quantified as volume or weight change over time. These metrics are measured directly
with high accuracy and are intuitive and easy for pilots to mentally integrate.
In electric propulsion, five numbers are typically used to quantify the energy state: Depth of Discharge (DOD),
State of Charge (SOC), State of Health (SOH), State of Energy (SOE), and State of Available Power (SOAP). These
metrics cannot be measured directly and must be estimated, with an accuracy driven by the estimation method.
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

A. Depth of Discharge
Depth of Discharge is the percentage of the total battery capacity extracted before the battery is recharged, i.e. over
one battery cycle. Hence, a DOD of 30% means that the mission is completed and the battery is recharged after 30%
of its rated capacity has been discharged. Batteries degrade both with the number of charge/discharge cycles and with
the recurring DOD [8]. The DOD limits for a battery depend on the number of cycles a battery is expected to last. As
example: An UAM vehicle designed to fly 30 missions per day (one mission assumed to represent a full
charge/discharge cycle) over a battery lifetime of five years completes around 55,000 cycles. This cycle life
requirement corresponds to a DOD limit of around 40% for typical lithium-ion batteries [8]. Therefore, only 40% of
the available battery capacity can be accessed during a nominal mission. The battery must be oversized by a factor of
2.5. This estimate does not include that the battery capacity decreases over time, which is indicated by the State of
Health.

B. State of Charge and State of Health

Multiple quantities called capacity are used to characterize the maximum possible charge of a battery. The rated
capacity, typically expressed in ampere hours (Ah), is the maximum charge a new battery can hold. It is provided by
the battery manufacturer. The releasable capacity is what can actually be released from a completely charged battery.
The releasable capacity changes with use and is quantified in the SOH, the ratio between releasable capacity and rated
capacity [8]. Example: The manufacturer rates the battery at 8 Ah capacity, but after a full charge it only reads 7 Ah.
Therefore, the SOH is 87.5%.
Cell Voltage

80% 20%
SOC
Fig. 1: Typical cell voltage vs. charge curve

4
 Battery degradation and decrease in SOH are driven by a number of factors, most notably the age of the battery,
i.e. the time since assembly, the cycle life, and the charge and discharge temperatures. Battery “aging” is the gradual
decrease in discharge capacity caused by growth of internal resistance.
SOC is the percentage remaining of the battery capacity. Example: when 5.6 Ah are remaining in an 8 Ah battery,
the SOC is 70%. On first glance, SOC seems like a straight forward and easy to interpret measure, but it is not. The
first question that must be asked when interpreting SOC numbers is what battery capacity is used. Is the SOC referring
to rated capacity at the beginning-of-life of the battery, or to actually releasable capacity indicated by the SOH? In the
previous examples, 70% SOC correspond to 5.6 Ah based on rated capacity, but only to 4.9 Ah based on releasable
capacity. During vertical landing, this difference in interpretation can be fatal.
The other question that must be asked is what constitutes 0% and 100% SOC. In other terms, when do we consider
a battery to be “fully charged” or “empty”? Batteries, in particular lithium-ion batteries, are sensitive to overcharging
and full discharge. A charge to above 80% rated capacity hastens cathode degradation, discharging below 20%
increases internal resistance. When interpreting SOC values it is essential to know whether they are based on the
complete capacity of the battery where 0% SOC means a chemically inert battery, or on a capacity adjusted for the
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

charge range for optimum battery health, where 0% SOC corresponds to around 20% battery charge.
Unlike a fuel quantity, SOH and SOC cannot be measured directly but must be estimated from other measurements.
A detailed discussion of these methods is available in Ref. [9]. In principle, the battery cell voltage is an indicator for
the SOC, but only within the linear range between about 80% and 20% of battery charge, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
In the extreme ±20% - 30% of the battery charge none of the common estimation methods are sufficiently accurate,
as the battery behavior becomes nonlinear and depends on the cell chemistry, the integration of individual cells into
the battery pack, and temperature. Therefore, to use the battery pack to its final limit a rigorous testing campaign is
required. Using the battery up to its final stages also degrades state of health significantly faster than operating within
the linear range.

C. State of Energy
SOE is different from both SOH and SOC as it represents the actual energy extractable from the battery at a
particular given time. SOE is not simply the product of SOC and SOH. SOE depends significantly on the discharge
rate. i.e. power required, and the specific component temperatures. Depending on the complexity of the calculation
method, SOE may account for SOC, SOH, temperature, age of the battery, and the efficiencies of other components
in the powertrain. There is no standard way of calculating SOE and the predominant methods differ from industry to
industry. Hence, caution is advised when interpreting SOE values. SOE encapsulates the performance of the entire
powertrain system therefore it cannot just be calculated using just the available battery parameters.

D. State of Available Power

State of Available Power indicates the maximum power that can be drawn from the battery. The available battery
power is limited by the Safe Operating Area (SOA), which is limited by battery temperature, discharge current, battery
voltage, and SOC [10]. For short-term monitoring (≤10 s) of the SOAP, battery voltage and discharge current are the
practical drivers. Therefore, the maximum extractable power is limited by the voltage and current limits of the battery.
In a battery pack, the limits of individual cells can be the driver [10].

V. Modeling: Battery Charge and Health

A powertrain modeling framework is utilized to simulate energy-related metrics from the input parameters
provided by the flight dynamics code (primarily the required mission power, airspeed, and ambient air temperature).
SOC, maximum deliverable power, and individual component temperatures (battery, motor, inverter) are all tracked,
and allow the performance of the vehicle to be assessed with respect to the intended flight-plan.
Expanding on the work by Beedie et al. [11], the modular component-level modeling framework was modified;
replacing the battery, motor/inverter, and thermal models with simple first-order physics-based models. These models
were then calibrated and validated using the surrogate models and flight test data available from the previous work.
The battery was modeled with a Thevenin equivalent circuit model, with the cell performance characterized across
a range of operational conditions. A Newton solver then determines the required battery current to match the power
requested by the flight dynamics code, and integration of this current over the course of the mission allows the SOC
to be tracked. The instantaneous voltage is also tracked throughout the mission, allowing for the objective energy
stored in the battery to be calculated.
The electric motor powerplants also utilize simple first-order models; in the case of the Pipistrel Velis Electro, this
is the combined E-811 AC induction motor and H300A inverter form the Electric Propulsion Unit (EPU). An

5
 efficiency map provided by the manufacturer allows interpolation of the varying EPU efficiency throughout mission
(as a function of requested torque and RPM). In the case of the notional lift + cruise configuration, the performance
of the conventional Velis motor has been scaled to form the cruise motor. For the initial implementation of the vertical
lift system, a fixed efficiency has been utilized for all lift motors.
First-order temperature models were developed, taking as an input the thermal power calculated using I2R heating,
the with current and resistance obtained from the battery equivalent circuit model. It is assumed this is dissipated heat
energy, removed via the cooling system, modeled in this paper with first-order convective losses. Although the
individual cooling system may vary between aircraft, manufacturer-provided flight data can be used to calibrate simple
models, as has been done in this paper, allowing coefficient estimates to be tuned to match the real-world response
across a range of operational conditions.

VI. Modeling: Trajectory Energy and Power Demand

The trajectory energy management system for electrified aircraft should provide the pilot with insights on the
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

energy remaining in flight. To be able to estimate the energy remaining, an analysis of flight trajectories is needed.
This may be used before flight to estimate the ability of the vehicle to carry out its mission, or this may be done in
real-time in flight by providing the pilot with active predictions of safe and flyable trajectories. In either case, there is
a need for a study into the trajectory generation algorithms and how this should be visualized and analyzed.
This work seeks to provide insights on the trajectory generation task for eVTOL by developing and evaluating
multiple trajectory generation and visualization methods. This includes testing of multiple grid-based and graph-based
search algorithms in the cases of with and without kinodynamic constraints. Efficient tree search algorithms have
proven to be successful and continue to show that in this work for trajectory generation. Improvements on these
algorithms allow for both point-to-point optimal flight planning and alternative route exploration. The trajectory
generation algorithm leverages a ‘black-box’ dynamics model to generate trajectories that are flyable (aircraft can be
trimmed at any point along a trajectory), that are subsystem informed (thermal constraints of the various components
of the powertrain are accounted for) and finally that is energy-optimized.

Fig. 2: Trajectory Energy Management (TEM) Simulation Environment [11]

A simulation environment is developed to simulate, test and evaluate the Trajectory Energy Management (TEM)
system. This environment can be seen in Fig. 2. Inputs to the simulation environment are provided in the form of a
vehicle definition and mission objectives. General vehicle sizing, inertias, weights, aerodynamic parameters, stability
and control parameters and powertrain specifics are required to define the vehicle in sufficient details. The mission
objectives mainly consist of flight route constraints. At its core, the TEM simulation environment consists of the
‘trajectory generation’ and ‘energy analysis’ functionality that work in parallel to form the Trajectory Energy
Modeling. The trajectory generation aims to find an optimal feasible flight trajectory by querying the vehicle dynamics
and powertrain modules to update state information and specific cost information. The vehicle dynamics are defined
in a 6 DOF aircraft model to simulate the vehicle flight along the generated trajectory. Trimmed and stable flight is
achieved by defining the trajectory as a sequence of individual flight segments: takeoff, landing, cruise, horizontal
flight climb/descend, turn and vertical flight climb/descend. Trimmed flight is obtained by using an optimization
algorithm to find the desired vehicle states and inputs. At each new operating condition in the mission the required

6
 power for trimmed flight is determined to then be used as a requested power input to the powertrain simulation model.
Feasibility of operating conditions is evaluated by making sure powertrain component temperatures do not exceed
their limits, the requested power of the powertrain does not exceed maximum power settings and the overall SOC of
the battery is not below its limit. The powertrain model defined in the energy analysis can help predict and estimate
metrics of interest such as energy remaining in hover, energy remaining in cruise, total state of charge and state of
health. This information is iteratively used in the trajectory generation to find an optimal mission trajectory. Once
found, the optimal trajectory together with key energy and powertrain metrics are communicated with the user through
the visualization module.
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

Fig. 3: Use-case scenario outline

Two vehicles are currently considered in the TEM simulation environment and used for proof-of-concept
demonstration. The first is a Slovenian general aviation fixed wing fully electric aircraft called Pipistrel Velis Electro
[12]. The second one is a VTOL capable Lift+Cruise vehicle generated through the NASA Revolutionary Vertical
Lift Technology (RVLT) program [13]. The Velis Electro was chosen for its relatively well-known characteristics and
availability of flight test data. The NASA RVLT Lift+Cruise aircraft provides a futuristic example of an exemplary
UAM VTOL capable vehicle for which detailed design and sizing information is available through the NASA RVLT
program. Validation for the Velis Electro simulation model was performed in [11] using experimental flight test data
provided by pipistrel. More details about the technical aspects of the aircraft modeling, trajectory modeling, and
trajectory optimization are provided in Verberne et al. [14].

Fig. 4: Two feasible routes from KBUR to L70

7
 A use-case is then used to demonstrate the capabilities of the TEM environment in finding, simulating and
analyzing a flight route. Fig. 3 shows a potential pre-flight planning scenario in which the flightcrew is attempting to
fly a Velis Electro-like aircraft from Bob Hope Airport (KBUR) to Agua Dulce Airport (L70) both in Los Angeles
County. As can be seen, the direct route distance is about 18 nmi but a significant climb is required to avoid
mountaineous terrain in between both airports. Using the trajectory generation capability, flyable routes can be found
where no component temperature violation occurs, no SOC limitations is exceeded, and no requested power to support
flight exceed available power ratings for the aircraft. In particular, the environment is able to find two routes shown
in Fig. 4. One has a straight path connecting both airports and requires a significant altitude increase (blue). The other
is a circuitous path in green which covers more ground distance but does not require any extended climb owing to the
lower terrain. The final SOC for the direct path is 59% while the final SOC for the circuitous path is 43%.
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

Fig. 5: Powertrain analysis: Direct path from KBUR to L70

Fig. 6: Powertrain analysis: Circuitous path from KBUR to L70

Detailed mission analysis for the two routes can be seen in Fig. 5 for the direct path and Fig. 6 for the circuitous
path. On the right of the figure a power analysis can be seen for the power required to support the flight conditions

8
 together with a limit for max takeoff power which can be demanded for up to 90 seconds and a max continuous power
limit. On the bottom left, the temperature time histories for the battery, motor and inverter are shown for both routes
together with their respective limits. As can be seen, all component temperatures are below limits for both missions
but the component temperatures are higher for the direct path since this route requires longer climb segments and
therefore higher power settings than the circuitous path. Furthermore, an evolution of SOC and energy can be seen on
the bottom left. Finally, on the top left, a time history is shown for instantaneous endurance and range remaining based
on the previous 5 minutes of flight. An interesting observation for the circuitous path is that both the remaining range
and endurance fluctuate quite significantly. At the seventh minute time stamp, the remaining endurance decreases
over the course of two minutes from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. Similarly for the direct path around the 12 th minute
time stamp, the remaining endurance increases over the course of one minute from 18 minutes of flight remaining to
28 minutes of flight remaining. Significant changes like these might confuse a pilot trying to evaluate how much actual
endurance is left and an improved method is required to communicate this information more clearly to a flight crew.
Additionally, VFR daytime reserve requirement of 30 minutes and VFR nighttime (IFR) reserve requirement of 45
minutes are shown based on 14 CFR §91.151. Neither routes allow for these reserve requirements to be met partly
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

due to limited battery capacity of the electric aircraft. As will be discussed in future sections, perhaps a different
approach to the reserve segment is required.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show detailed trajectory analyses for two routes given the initial temperature and battery
conditions shown in Fig. 3. The TEM environment allows to vary the initial conditions for initial SOC, initial SOH
and component temperatures to re-evaluate the feasibility of the particular route. For example, Fig. 3 shows a relatively
cool outside air temperature of 20°C. If the outside air temperature instead is increased to 35°C while keeping the
initial component temperatures equal to the nominal temperatures, (aircraft stored in a cool hangar and being flown
during the heat of the day instead of the cool early morning), the time history for the component temperatures can be
seen in Fig. 7. For the new higher OAT, the direct route becomes infeasible due to temperature violations for the
inverter and temperature limit being met for the motor.

Fig. 7: Component temperature time history for elevated OAT for circuitous route (top) and direct path
(bottom)

VII. Reference Flight Profile

Flights tests are required for the validation of any powertrain or flight dynamics models in the Trajectory Energy
Management Systems, as well as for the actual certification of the aircraft. To provide conclusive answers, flight tests
must be based on operationally relevant trajectories, must include realistic operating conditions, and must be
repeatable. Therefore, the use of a Design Reference Mission or Reference Flight Profiles is recommended.

9
 A. GAMA Flight Profiles
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) Publication 16 is typically used as baseline in studies
on hybrid and electric aircraft [15]. It includes four reference flight profiles:

A. A destination trip from airport A to airport B

B. A local training flight
C. A traffic pattern flight
D. A vertical flight from site A to B, including aborted landing and divert to alternate landing site

GAMA flight profile 4 is not fully operationally representative of eVTOL vehicles in UAM scenarios, as it does
not include elements critical for the power/energy requirements such as flight path gradients, loiter phases,
intermediate landings without recharge to load/unload cargo/passengers, and reconnaissance of alternate landing sites.

B. NASA VTOL UAM Reference Flight Geometry

Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

NASA has also published a Reference Mission Geometry, with system simulations for multiple purely electric and
hybrid VTOL vehicle designs [16]. The NASA Reference Flight Geometry includes transition and hover phases prior
to landing, an unload/load segment and a 20 min cruise reserve for contingencies.
The NASA Reference Flight Geometry has the vehicle climb to cruise at 4,000 ft AGL, which is relevant for longer
distance transportation, but not for UAM. In addition, the Flight Geometry includes vertical climb segments to 50 ft
AGL and specifies climb in terms of climb rate instead of flight path angles. However, helicopter pilots prefer to have
very brief periods of actual vertical ascent/descent, followed by rapid transition into forward flight. For helicopters,
the preferred approach angles are quite shallow, between 6° and 9°. This reduces the overall power requirements and
helicopters gain propulsion efficiency with the increased airflow during forward flight [17].

C. Flight Abort / Divert Safety Considerations

The NASA Reference Flight Geometry makes allowance for contingencies by adding a 20 minute cruise reserve,
closely following 14 CFR 91.151. This reserve may be adequate if the need to divert to an alternate landing site arises
during cruise. If the divert is triggered during descent or even loiter at the primary destination, this reserve is
inadequate. An aborted landing requires the vehicle to climb back to altitude, cruise for a certain distance, and perform
a vertical landing at the alternate site. Vertical flight phases have significantly higher power and energy demands than
horizontal flight. In addition, the alternate landing site may not be a clear landing site such as a vertiport, but may be
a park, city square, field, etc. In order to maintain both public safety and crew safety, the aircraft must execute landing
site reconnaissance and execute a landing approach around or over obstacles. Guidance for identifying suitable off-
airfield landing sites for helicopters exist [18].

D. Recommended Reference Flight Profile

The recommended Reference Flight Profile builds upon the work published by GAMA and NASA but makes
additions intended to improve the operational relevance, include best practices from helicopter operations, and makes
allowances for aborted descents, divert to alternate landing sites, and vertical landing at the alternate site.

3 10 16
15 17
2 4 9 11 18
5 12 19
6 13
1 8 14 20
10 nmi 7 10 nmi 10 nmi
Site C
Unload & Site B
Load at site A

Fig. 8: Recommended Reference Flight Profile [19]

It is envisioned that the Reference Flight Profile be adapted to the specific aircraft to be certified. Parameters to be
tuned are the cruise range, cruise altitude, and the flight path angles to account for the mission and operating
environment of the aircraft. However, the requirement for Passenger Pickup, the Safety Reserve, Flight Rules and
Weather are considered fixed.

10
 1. Cruise Range: 10 nautical miles. This matches the UAM needs for major U.S. urban areas, such as San
Francisco, Denver and New York City. With a 10 nautical mile cruise hop, an UAM system can deliver
passengers from any of the major airports to any location in the downtown area of these cities.
2. Base Altitude: 6,000 ft MSL. This models Denver as operating environment.
3. Cruise altitude: 2,000 ft AGL. This is a good fit for the operational needs of UAM systems and limits the
climb and descent phases with high power/energy demands.
4. Vertical Climb and Descent: within 20 ft of the ground, to clear immediate obstacles. The vehicle is then
expected to transition into forward flight as soon as possible, in order to achieve more efficient flow through
the propellers and to generate lift from the lifting surfaces.
5. Flight Path Angles: 6° for climb and 9° for descent. This matches both best practices of helicopter pilots and
the cruise range / cruise altitude combination.
6. Passenger Pickup: The reference mission has the UAM vehicle travel from its starting location for the full
cruise range, pick up a passenger at an intermediate waypoint without recharging/refueling, and travel another
full cruise range to its final destination.
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

7. Safety Reserve: The time-based cruise reserves of the existing safety standards for fixed-wing and rotary
wing aircraft are replaced with the requirement to divert to an alternate landing site. The alternate site is
assumed to be one full cruise range from the intended final destination.
8. Flight Rules: In order to be able to operate the UAM systems in all weather, day and night, it is assumed that
IFR operations are the default mode. However, the diversion to an alternate landing site foresees VFR, as the
alternate landing site cannot be required to be IFR equipped and may require reconnaissance.
9. Weather: Constant headwind of 10 kts.

The reference mission is defined in Fig. 8 and Table 1 and, adapted from previously published research [19].

Table 1: Recommended Reference Flight Profile

Mission Segment Description Flight Rules
1 Vertical climb to 20 ft AGL, starting at 6,000 ft MSL VFR
2 Climb at 6° gradient to cruise altitude IFR
3 Cruise at 2,000 ft AGL (8,000 ft MSL) IFR
4 Descent at 9° gradient IFR
5 Loiter at 500 ft AGL for 5 min to observe landing site or clear traffic IFR
6 Landing approach to intermediate destination A IFR
7 Vertical landing from 20 ft AGL, to 6,000 ft MSL IFR
8 Vertical climb to 20 ft AGL IFR
9 Climb at 6° gradient to cruise altitude IFR
10 Cruise at 2,000 ft AGL IFR
11 Descent at 9° gradient towards final destination B IFR
12 Loiter at 500 ft AGL for 5 min to observe landing site or clear traffic IFR
Nominal Completion
13 Landing approach IFR
14 Vertical landing from 20 ft AGL to 6,000 ft MSL VFR
Contingency Completion
15 Climb back to cruise altitude VFR
16 Cruise at 2,000 ft AGL to alternate landing site VFR
17 Descent at 9° gradient VFR
18 Loiter at 500 ft AGL for 5 min to reconnoiter alternate landing site VFR
19 Landing approach VFR
20 Vertical landing from 20 ft AGL VFR

11
 VIII. Pilot Information and Display Requirements

At any time during the flight, the pilot/operator must be informed about the Trajectory Energy Management state
of the aircraft system. Displays and the underlying algorithms can vary significantly in two parameters: (1) the level
of sophistication of powertrain power and energy models; (2) the level of automated piloting support provided by the
TEM system. As there are no standards for TEM displays, it is expected that eVTOL manufacturers will generate a
multitude of unique designs. To give both manufacturers and certification agencies baselines in terms of information
content and presentation, the TEM project developed six display drafts. Starting from a simple SOC and flight time
remaining display similar to that found in the Pipistrel Velis Electro, the draft displays increase in algorithmic
sophistication, culminating in a moving map display showing maximum achievable ranges in VTOL and CTOL
configuration and optimized flight paths to both intended and alternate destinations.

A. Display 1: No trajectory energy model and no flight path planner

TEM Display 1, illustrated in Fig. 9 is based on the current minimum standard for flight instrumentation as
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

specified in 14 CFR §91.205. The energy display is equivalent to an analog fuel gauge, showing the current non-
dimensional SOC corrected for battery SOH. Therefore, a battery with 70% SOH will show a maximum charge of
70% on this display, not 100% like an SOC display without correction. Power draw is presented equivalent to fuel
flow. Conversations with numerous pilots over the course of the project have shown that expressing energy in terms
of kWh and power in terms of kW often leads to confusion. The fuel rate indication is hence expressed in battery
capacity percentage per minute. This facilitates mental integration of the energy reserve and power draw displays.

BAT INV MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3

Temperatures ( C)

¼ ½ ¾
E F

Battery Charge

00:19
Inst. Power (C/min) Flight Time at Inst. Power

00:45
Ave. Power (C/min) Flight Time at Ave. Power

Inverter Temp high. Fly min

power profile.

Fig. 9: TEM display draft 1 - no trajectory energy model and no flight path planner
The display also shows two endurance numbers. The first is based on the battery charge and the instantaneous
power draw, to show to the pilot how long the aircraft will fly at the current throttle setting. The second endurance
number is calculated using the average power draw since takeoff, or maybe the average power draw over multiple
missions, to show the pilot the flight time remaining using a typical throttle setting. These time displays are based on
fuel efficiency and range displays commonly used in automobiles. In addition to the trajectory energy and power
information, the display also shows the temperatures of the most critical components, as these temperatures can be a
limiting factor in vehicle operations. Additional information on temperatures and the charge distribution over multiple
batteries would be shown on an additional system status page, but not on the primary display. A message field is used
to show system alerts and instructions.
The TEM team considers Display 1 to be the minimum necessary for safe vehicle operations, without the use of
TEM models or external data sources. As such, Display 1 does not assume an aircraft with powerful on-board
processors or data link.

12
 B. Display 2: Battery and power train model with standard flight profile
Draft 2 shown in Fig. 10 is based on the displays used in the Pipistrel Velis Electro eCTOL airplane. The Velis
shows individual capacity gauges for each battery, which is deemed unnecessary when a combined display is used for
the total battery charge. Battery charge is shown both as SOC corrected for SOH, and as dimensional value in kWh.
Power draw is also reported in physical units (kW). Two separate flight times are used: one for the remaining time
with VTOL landing, one for remaining time with CTOL landing. The two numbers are based on a predictive model
integrating trajectory energy and power over a standard flight profile such as the Reference Flight Profile presented
in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Therefore, Display 2 needs powertrain and battery models as
discussed in Section V above.

64% 18 kWh 64% 18 kWh

30 30
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

kW kW
Battery Charge Power Output Battery Charge Power Output

00:45 25.4 nm
Flight Time Remaining CTOL Range Remaining CTOL
BAT INV MOT1 MOT2 MOT3 BAT INV MOT1 MOT2 MOT3

Temperatures ( C) Temperatures ( C)

00:08 3.6 nm
Flight Time Remaining VTOL Range Remaining VTOL

Inverter Temp high. Fly min Inverter Temp high. Fly min
power profile. power profile.

Fig. 10: TEM display draft 2 - battery and power Fig. 11: TEM display draft 3 - battery and power
train model with standard flight profile train model standard flight profile and flight
dynamics model

C. Display 3: Battery and power train model standard flight profile and flight dynamics model
Display draft 3 shown in Fig. 11 is based on the range displays used in electric cars. Instead of endurance in Display
2, it shows the range remaining in nautical miles. Two range numbers are shown: one for CTOL landing, one for
VTOL landing. The range numbers are calculated from a trajectory power and energy model as discussed in Section
VI. Hence, Display 3 expands on Display 2 by adding a flight dynamics model to calculate range from endurance.
Display 3 is envisioned to not need a data link. Therefore, the range numbers do not account for terrain or weather.

D. Display 4: Moving map with battery and power train model, flight dynamics model and standard flight
profile
Display draft 4 is illustrated in Fig. 12. It converts the numerical range information from Display 3 into range rings
on a moving map display. The rings are oval as the aircraft will have more range in flight direction than if it were to
turn or turn around. The display does not assume a navigator nor a data link and hence requires the pilot/operator to
manually input destination (D) and alternate landing sites (A) and to mentally integrate weather and terrain data. Four
sets of range rings are shown: (1) CTOL landing with all systems operating; (2) CTOL landing with unnecessary
systems, e.g. air conditioning, turned off; (3) VTOL landing with all systems operating; (4) VTOL landing with
unnecessary systems turned off. This distinction of operating range based on on-board power consumers is common
in range displays for electric automobiles.

13
 BAT INV MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3
Temperatures ( C)

64% 18 kWh
D

Battery Charge
A

30
kW
Power Output

CTOL
CTOL w/o AC
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

VTOL
VTOL w/o AC

Inverter Temp high. Fly min power profile.

Fig. 12: TEM display draft 4 - moving map with battery and power train model, flight dynamics model and
standard flight profile

E. Display 5: Moving map with battery and power train model, flight dynamics model, navigation system, and
data link
Display 5 modifies Display 4 by adding a navigator function, as shown in Fig. 13. The moving map automatically
loads landing sites in the vicinity. All landing sites are color-coded for VTOL/CTOL suitability. The map updates
dynamically to show whether sites are in range. The color of the site outline indicates reachable (green) vs. unreachable
(red). The range rings account for weather and terrain data, hence a data link is required.

BAT INV MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3

Temperatures ( C)

64% 18 kWh
A

Battery Charge
A A
A

D A
A
30
A
kW
Power Output

CTOL
CTOL w/o AC
VTOL
VTOL w/o AC A A
A

Inverter Temp high. Fly min power profile.

Fig. 13: TEM display draft 5 - moving map with battery and power train model, flight dynamics model,
navigation system, and data link

14
 F. Display 6: Moving map with battery and power train model, flight dynamics model, navigation system, and
trajectory optimization
TEM display draft 6 (Fig. 14 adds) a trajectory planning algorithm such as discussed in Section VI. It generates
minimum power and/or energy flight paths to primary and alternate destinations, accounting for weather, terrain,
traffic, etc. The display only shows the primary destination and the energy-closest alternate.

BAT INV MOT 1 MOT 2 MOT 3

Temperatures ( C)

64% 18 kWh

Battery Charge
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

D
A
30
kW
Power Output

CTOL
CTOL w/o AC
VTOL
VTOL w/o AC

Inverter Temp high. Fly min power profile.

Fig. 14: TEM display draft 6 - moving map with battery and power train model, flight dynamics model,
navigation system, and trajectory optimization

G. Pilot Feedback
The six display designs were presented to six test pilots with mixed military and civilian background in piloting
fixed wing, rotary wing, and lift+cruise aircraft. After a test campaign at Florida Tech, four of the six had experience
flying the Pipistrel Velis Electro, one of the six had experience piloting an eVTOL prototype.
Overall, the pilots found that all six displays clearly convey the information required regarding available energy
reserve and power demands. The endurance display based on average power draw was found to not be particularly
helpful. Regarding the endurance and range displays, there was a split in opinion based on the piloting background.
Helicopter pilots found endurance more helpful, fixed wing pilots preferred range. There was agreement that graphical
displays are to be preferred over numerical displays. The pilots also agreed that the energy and power displays must
be linear, i.e. the flight time or range available between 100% and 75% SOC must be the same as between 25% and
0% SOC. For the trajectory optimization in Display 6, a pilot should be presented the power setting, altitude, speed,
etc. to reach the optimum flight path. The moving maps in Displays 4 – 6 should also account for available routing in
urban environments, NOTAMs, traffic restrictions, runway closures, etc. In particular, it was found that the optimized
flight path in Display 6 may not mean much as local conditions at an airfield/vertiport may negate any energy/power
savings due to optimization. In addition, the level of trust in the data fusion for these displays must be high. For
eVTOL operations, component temperature may be a limiting factor, more so than battery charge.

IX. Conclusion

Trajectory Energy Management will be a critical task in piloting/operating eVTOL aircraft. The low energy density
of batteries and dynamically changing extractable energy combined with the unique and potentially deceiving flight
profile with high power and energy demand at the beginning and the end of the mission male constant energy state
awareness safety critical. The paper reported on the progress of an FAA-funded project to better understand the
behavior of battery-electric powertrains, to model the trajectory energy demand and supply of aircraft, to validate such
models using standardized tests, and to display the trajectory energy information to pilots/operators in an intuitively

15
 accessible format. The work presented lays the foundation towards the definition of future Trajectory Energy
Management systems and the means of compliance used in the certification of eVTOL vehicles.

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper was supported by the Federal Aviation Administration under contract
DTFACT-17-C-00001.

References

[1] M. Moore and K. Goodrich, "On‐Demand Mobility - Goals, Technical Challenges, and Roadmaps," 9
February 2015. [Online]. Available: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006950.pdf.
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

[Accessed 4 April 2019].

[2] UBER, "Eleveate," 27 October 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/. [Accessed 4
April 2019].
[3] FAA, "Small Airplane Issues List (SAIL), Q2 FY 2019 Release," FAA, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/small_airplanes_regs/media/sail_fy1
9_q2.pdf. [Accessed 4 April 2019].
[4] TransportUP, "EASA's Approach to Urvan Aircraft Certification," TransportUP, 4 February 2019. [Online].
Available: https://transportup.com/headlines-breaking-news/regulations/easas-approach-to-urban-aircraft-
certification/. [Accessed 4 April 2019].
[5] M. A. Dietrich, "Certification Basis: A Discussion," in Uber Elevate Summit 2019, Los Angeles, CA, 2019.
[6] Chevron Products Company, "Aviation Fuels - Technical Review," 2007. [Online]. Available:
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/operations/documents/aviation-tech-review.pdf. [Accessed 04
February 2021].
[7] D. P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Reston, VA: AIAA, 2018.
[8] M. R. Palacin and A. de Guibert, "Why do batteries fail?," Science, vol. 351, no. 6273, 2016.
[9] M. Murnane and A. Ghazel, "A Closer Look at State of Charge (SOC) and State of Health (SOH) Estimation
Techniques for Batteries," Analog Devices, Norwood, MA, 2017.
[10] A. Farmann and D. U. Sauer, "A comprehensive review of on-board State-of-Available-Power prediction
techniques for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles," Journal of Power Sources, no. 329, pp. 123-137,
2016.
[11] S. M. Beedie, C. M. Harris, J. A. Verberne, C. Y. Justin and D. N. Mavris, "Modeling Framework for
Identification and Analysis of Key Metris for Trajectory Energy Management of Electric Aircraft," in AIAA
Aviation Forum, 2021.
[12] Pipistrel Aircraft, "Velis Electro EASA TC," [Online]. Available: https://www.pipistrel-
aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/velis-electroeasa-tc/.
[13] P. Darmstadt, R. Catanese, A. Beiderman, F. Dones, E. Chen, M. Mistry, B. Babie, M. Beckman and R.
Preator, "Hazard Analysis and Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) of Four Concept
Vehicle Propulsion Systems," NASA, Hampton, VA, 2018.
[14] J. A. Verberne, S. M. Beedie, C. M. Harris, C. Y. Justin and D. N. Mavris, "Development of a Simulation
Environment to Identify Key Metrics to Support Cockpit Decision-Making and Trajectory Energy
Management Systems of Electric CTOL and VTOL Vehicles," in AIAA Aviation, Chicago, IL, 2022.
[15] GAMA, "GAMA Publication No. 16: Hybrid & Electric Propulsion Performance Measurement," General
Aviation Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC, 2017.
[16] C. Silva, W. Johnson, K. R. Antcliff and M. D. Patterson, "VTOL Urban Air Mobility Concept Vehicles for
Technology Development," in 2018 AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference,
2018.
[17] R. I. Kimberlin, "Integrating Helicopters into the National Airspace System," in 1994 AIAA/FAA Joint
Symposium on General Aviation Systems, 1994.

16
 [18] European Helicopter Safety Team (EHEST), "Off Airfield Landing Site Operations - Methods to Improve
Helicopter Pilots' Safety," European Aviation Safety Agency , Cologne, Germany, 2009.
[19] B. Kish, M. Wilde, I. Silver, B. Wheeler, A. Cleveland and K. Reppen, "Flight Test Comparison of Three Air
Vehicles Flying Urban Air Mobility Mission Trajectories," in IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT,
2022.
[20] FAA Aircraft Certification Service, "Technical Standard Order: Fuel and Oil Quantity Instruments (TSO-
C55a)," Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2007.
[21] SAE International, "Minimum Performance Standards for Fuel and Oil Quantity Indicating System
Components (AS8029)," SAE International, 2008.
[22] Wisdom Industrial Power Co., Ltd, "Lithium Batteries VS Lead Acid Batteries," 30 November 2020. [Online].
Available: https://www.bullsbattery.com/industry-news/lithium-battery-vs-SLA.html. [Accessed 22 April
2021].
Downloaded by GEORGIA INST OF TECHNOLOGY on June 29, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3413

17