drones

Article
Control Algorithms, Kalman Estimation and Near Actual
Simulation for UAVs: State of Art Perspective
Muhammad Amir Tahir, Imran Mir * and Tauqeer Ul Islam

College of Aeronautical Engineering, National University of Science & Technology, Risalpur 23200, Pakistan;
[email protected] (M.A.T.); [email protected] (T.U.I.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The pervasive use of unmanned aerial vehicles for both commercial and military operations
has undergone rapid development in the recent past. When designing unmanned aerial vehicles, it is
highly desirable for them to be able to complete their missions with minimal human intervention.
Reaching full autonomy requires a reliable and efficient control algorithm that can handle all flight
conditions. Due to the confidential nature of UAV design and development, there is a lack of
comprehensive literature on the subject. When it comes to the practical application of the ideas
presented in the literature, the situation is even bleaker. This research not only examines the flight
phases in which controllers and estimators are used for UAVs but also provides an in-depth analysis of
the most recent and state-of-the-art control and estimate techniques for UAVs. Research opportunities
and challenges specific to UAVs were also examined in this study in an effort to raise the bar for
UAV design as a whole and smooth the way for researchers to go from simulation-based research
to practical applications. This review paper establishes a foundation that not only investigates the
inherent flight dynamics, control architecture, and Kalman estimators utilized in the development
of UAVs but also points out the shortcomings that currently exist in research. A number of design
considerations for realistic applications and potential studies are presented in the conclusion.

Keywords: fixed-wing; near-actual simulations; unmanned aerial vehicle; control techniques;

autonomous flight; state estimation
Citation: Tahir, M.A.; Mir, I.; Islam,
T.U. Control Algorithms, Kalman
Estimation and Near Actual
Simulation for UAVs: State of Art
1. Introduction
Perspective. Drones 2023, 7, 339.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have become one of the
drones7060339 most attractive branches of the aviation industry in recent years due to their versatility
and capabilities for a variety of applications [1–5]. Typically, the military employs UAVs
Academic Editor: Diego
for tasks like surveillance, reconnaissance, combat/strike missions, intelligence gathering,
González-Aguilera
etc. [6,7]. But as new technologies have emerged, their potential for use in the public
Received: 24 March 2023 sector has also grown. This is especially true in applications like disaster management,
Revised: 7 May 2023 wireless sensor networks [8,9], surveillance and monitoring [10,11], search and rescue
Accepted: 16 May 2023 operations [12], Internet of Things (IoT) [13], remote sensing [14] and commodities trans-
Published: 24 May 2023 portation [15] etc. As the mission complexity of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) increases,
so does the difficulty of their development, particularly with the goal of achieving fully
autonomous flight (i.e., with minimal to zero human interaction). Due to the versatility of
UAVs, the mission profile will change depending on the mission’s objective. Takeoff and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
landing are the two critical flight phases of a fully autonomous UAV flight. Furthermore,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
numerous applications necessitate that UAVs operate autonomously in unpredictable and
This article is an open access article
changing environments, where the UAV must rely on their available sensors to perceive
distributed under the terms and
their surroundings and efficiently complete their mission [16]. The three fundamental
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
subsystems necessary for UAV autonomy are guidance, navigation, and control (GNC).
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
An unmanned aerial vehicle’s (UAV) “pilot” is its guidance system, which plans and
4.0/).
makes decisions to carry out missions and achieve objectives. Usually, a reference trajectory

Drones 2023, 7, 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones7060339 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/drones

Drones 2023, 7, 339 2 of 21

for the UAV is constructed using information from both the mission planner and the present
state of the vehicle. The current position and speed of the UAV are also taken into account
alongside the intended location and environmental factors like wind speed that could
affect the UAV’s flight. UAVs utilize a variety of different types of guidance algorithms
depending on their mission objectives. These algorithms developed a reference trajectory
that improves the UAV’s performance in accordance with user-specified goals, such as
reducing travel time to the target and reducing fuel consumption. Common UAV guidance
algorithms include waypoint guidance, proportional navigation, and pure pursuit.
Information regarding UAV’s state and its surrounding is provided by the navigation
system [17]. The UAV’s location, speed, and orientation are continuously monitored by
the navigation system using data collected by onboard sensors. The UAV’s guidance and
control systems rely on accurate state estimates provided by the navigation system. In
order to estimate the UAV’s current states, the navigation system frequently consists of up
of a suite of sensors and algorithms. Common sensors used in UAV navigation systems
include GPS, IMU, vision sensor, and pitot tube. These sensor readings are then used by
State estimators within the navigation algorithms to ascertain the current states of the UAV.
State estimators estimate the UAV’s state using data from sensors in conjunction with the
UAV’s mathematical model and this estimate is more accurate than the original sensor
data. In order to execute the necessary control actions, rapid and accurate state estimations
are required due to the fast dynamics of the UAV. However, some system states are not
observable and some measurements are unreliable because of sensor errors [18]. Efficient
and precise state estimation is crucial for enabling autonomous UAV flights. Even though
it’s crucial for the UAV’s control performance and safety, state estimate has been mainly
ignored until now [19].
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) rely
heavily on the control algorithm. Actuator inputs required to produce moments and forces
in accordance with guidance system commands are handled by the control system, which is
comprised of control laws that take into account the current state of the UAV as determined
by the navigation system (sensors) and the UAV dynamics. Maintaining stability and
controllability of the UAV in the presence of exogenous inputs and wind disturbances is in
the hands of the control algorithm. An unmanned aerial vehicle’s trajectory is maintained
via a control command calculated from the UAV’s current state and the pre-planned
trajectory. The ultimate objective of UAVs is to perform the required missions with minimal
human assistance. Fully autonomous control of UAVs is more challenging because it does
not require human support during autonomous operation. As a result, problems with flight
safety and accidents are more likely to occur in unmanned aircraft compared to planes
flown by humans [20]. Creating and implementing sophisticated and reliable control
algorithms is crucial for preventing these failures and enhancing autonomy. Numerous
control algorithms, from the more basic PID [21] controller to the more complex Neural
network and fuzzy logic controllers [22], have been developed and implemented for the
autonomous flight of UAVs.
UAVs quickly expanding fleet, and their increasing utility presents a significant chal-
lenge to engineers in terms of creating efficient and robust GNC algorithms. However,
the development of dependable and robust systems is made possible by technological
advances in the aerospace industry [9,23–25] and ground vehicles [26–36]. Figure 1 depicts
the typical UAV GNC architecture. To identify and address the potential faults and errors
in the designed algorithm prior to its practical implementation, model-in-loop, software-in-
loop, processor-in-loop, and hardware-in-loop, along with different visualization software,
are generally used. With the use of simulation and visualization tools, developers can
evaluate the GNC algorithm’s functionality and performance in a variety of scenarios,
ensuring its robustness and dependability before committing to costly and time-consuming
flight testing. Additionally, these realistic simulation techniques can be utilized to assess
the GNC algorithm’s robustness to complex and dynamic situations, assuring that it can
deal with unforeseen changes and disruptions [37]. There is a wide variety of unmanned
Drones 2023, 7, 339 3 of 21

aerial vehicles (UAVs), each with its own set of features and capabilities to meet the desired
mission requirement. Fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)
UAVs are the three primary types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Like conventional
airplanes, fixed-wing UAVs rely on a pair of wings to provide lift, they can carry more
payload as compared to their counterparts however, they require a runway for take-off and
landing. Alternatively, rotary-wing UAVs mimic the flight characteristics of helicopters by
using a rotor to create lift and steer the UAV. Vertical takeoff and landing unmanned aerial
vehicles (VTOL UAVs) are a hybrid of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, combining
their respective strengths to provide both efficient forward flight and vertical takeoff and
landing [38]. In this work, however, we shall examine only fixed-wing UAVs.

Figure 1. Generic control architecture for UAV [39].

1.1. Objective and Contents

The objective of this paper is to present an analysis of flight control algorithms utilized
for the autonomous flight of fixed-wing UAVs, with a focus on landing and takeoff. Also
discussed is the estimator used to compensate for inaccurate sensor data and sensor fail-
ure. It is clear from the articles consulted and the literary analysis that most UAV studies
conducted by researchers have concentrated on one aspect of flight, such as takeoff or
landing and the work also lacked the implementation of a state estimator. In addition,
the design architecture remained simulation-based without any near-actual simulation
work, such as Processor-in-the-loop or Hardware-in-the-loop simulations, which are the
basis for the practical implementation of the onboard flight controller. This is an essential
component for successfully implementing the control architecture to physical hardware.
Due to the aforementioned highlighted observations, it is necessary to present a consol-
idated systematic review that summarizes and discusses all such essential components
for the actual development of UAVs. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the
simulation methods and flight simulators that have been employed by academics in their
efforts to verify the efficacy of flight controllers for fixed-wing UAVs. This paper will
assist both the general public and industries in moving from simulation-based work to
practical implementation.

1.2. Paper Organization

In Section 2, we provide a review of the published survey papers on UAVs. Sections 3.1 and 4
respectively cover the control algorithms and state estimators utilized. Section 5 provides
information and review on realistic simulation techniques and visualization software used
for fixed-wing UAVs. In Section 6, we discuss the existing challenges as well as future work
directions. In the final Section, 7 we sum up this manuscript.

2. Relevant Studies
Flight controller design, motion planning algorithms, traffic surveillance, communica-
tion networks, vision-based navigation, and Kalman filtering are the most studied topics
when it comes to UAVs. Dadkhah et al. [40] presents an overview of motion planning
techniques for unmanned aerial vehicles, focusing on their application for autonomous
guidance. The authors describe the main sources of uncertainty and practical techniques to
cater to these uncertainties. This review focuses mostly on algorithms that can be utilized
Drones 2023, 7, 339 4 of 21

for UAV guidance. The author also discusses the main challenges in autonomous UAV
guidance. A survey on UAV’s application for traffic management and the ongoing research
on UAVs by the different universities is presented in [41]. The author highlighted that in
the field of traffic management, unmanned air vehicles outperform other approaches due
to their maneuverability and wireless network communication. Moreover, the barriers to
UAV development are also discussed. The author also discusses various types of vision
sensors and their types of processing.
Ollero et al. [42] presents a survey on various UAV platforms. The survey also presents
control architectures, issues faced during the implementation of control algorithms, and
computer vision techniques used in UAVs. Perception methods for UAVs were the primary
focus of the study. The author also provided a brief overview of recent developments
in multi-robot systems. Chen et al. [43] present a survey on the concept of autonomous
control and the Autonomous Control Level (ACL) metrics to assess the autonomy of
unmanned aerial vehicles. The architecture for autonomous control for UAVs is also
discussed. Emami et al. [44] in their paper, conducted a comprehensive review of the
design and development of intelligent flight control systems for UAVs, with a special
emphasis on neural network-based controllers. The mathematics of neural network-based
controllers is laid out in detail, and both the challenges and issues of these systems are
also explored. In addition, a clear design guideline for an intelligent control system is also
presented. Some of the review papers, along with their areas of research, are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Consolidated studies: UAV.

Reference Research Focus

[45–52] Control algorithms
[53–56] Motion planning techniques algorithms
[57–61] Applications of UAV
[62,63] Collision avoidance strategies
[64,65] Navigation techniques
[66,67] Guidance and Control algorithms
[68] Kalman Filtering Techniques
[69] 6G UAV communication
[70] Open-source Hardware and Software Flight Control Platforms

3. UAV Dynamic Modeling and Control Architecture

The mathematical models of UAVs serve as the basis for a number of different GNC
algorithms. These models eradicate the need for costly and time-consuming physical
testing in order to predict and assess the UAV’s performance in a variety of scenarios.
Unmanned aerial vehicles can be represented with either three degrees of freedom (3-DOF)
or much more complex and comprehensive six degrees of freedom (6-DOF) models. A
3-degrees-of-freedom model represents the UAV as a point mass that can move in three
dimensions (x, y, and z), which is computationally inexpensive but significantly inaccurate.
Due to its low computational cost, the 3-DOF model has been widely used by researchers in
the design of UAV control systems. Models with three degrees of freedom typically fall into
one of two categories: Sach’s equations of motion [71] and Zhao’s equations of motion [72].
However, in the 6DoF model, UAV is considered to be a rigid body having six degrees
of freedom: three translations (along the x, y, and z axis) and three rotations (i.e., roll, pitch,
and yaw). A 6DoF model is more accurate than a 3DoF model and can simulate a wider
range of maneuvers and flight situations since it takes into consideration aerodynamic
forces and moments as well as the UAV’s mass and moment of inertia. The 6DoF equation
of motions for a UAV under the assumption of a flat earth model, as found in [73,74].
Drones 2023, 7, 339 5 of 21

Where U,V and W are the translational velocities in the body axis. The body axis angular
velocities are denoted by P, Q and R. Euler angles φ, θ and ψ define the UAV’s attitude. PE ,
PN and h are the inertial position of the UAV, and m is the mass of the UAV. The moment
of inertia about the x, y, and z axes are denoted by JX , JY and JZ , respectively; J represents
the moment of the inertia matrix. JXZ represent the product of inertia and g represents the
gravitational acceleration.
These 12 coupled first-order differential Eqs accurately describe the motion of a UAV.
A fixed-wing UAV has four actuators (throttle, ailerons, elevator, and rudder) to control
these 12 states. The throttle (δt ) controls the forward acceleration of the UAV, the ailerons
(δa ) control the bank angle/roll angle, the elevator (δe ) controls the pitch angle, and the
rudder (δr ) controls the yaw of the UAV. Similarly, in the wind axis system, the states are
UAV speed (VT ), angle of attack (α), and slide slip angle (β). The fixed-wing UAV is an
underactuated system since it only has four control inputs and six degrees of freedom.

3.1. Flight Control Algorithms

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) rely heavily on flight control algorithms to enable
precise and autonomous control throughout their flights. Several research examining
various flight phases of UAVs using various control strategies have been conducted. As
shown in Figure 2, control strategies can be categorized as model-based or model-free.
Model-based flight control algorithms are further subdivided into linear and non-linear con-
trollers. Common linear flight controllers include PID, LQR, H2 /H∞ , and Gain Scheduling.
While Non-linear controllers include Feedback Linearization, Model Predictive Control,
Backstepping, Sliding Mode Control, and Adaptive Control [49]. Because of their inher-
ent limitations, Linear and Nonlinear flight controllers are being replaced by Learning
based/Model free controllers [75], which are more complicated and intelligent. Fuzzy
logic and Neural networks are types of Model-free controllers [76]. Both model-based
and model-free control strategies have been employed in diverse ways to achieve desired
goals [77].
Both linear and non-linear controllers have been utilized in diverse ways by researchers
to achieve the desired results. In this regard, Carnes [21] has developed a low-cost flight
controller based on a PID controller for the autonomous takeoff and landing of a fixed-wing
UAV. Moreover, Hardware-in-Loop simulations are used to validate the efficacy of the
designed controller. Similarly, Chen et al. [78] suggested a PID-based longitudinal landing
control system for UAVs. The simulations were conducted using MATLAB /Simulink, and
the outcomes were good. However, the complete dynamics of UAVs and the impact of
wind disturbance were not investigated. Pokswat et al. [79] developed a Gain-Scheduled
PID controller for a fixed-wing UAV. To determine the controller gains, an automatic
tuning algorithm is used. The gain-scheduled control algorithm for the fixed-wing UAV
was tested in a wind tunnel to demonstrate its effective implementation. Jetley et al. [80]
designed an LQR controller for the autonomous landing of fixed-wing UAVs. The designed
controller gave satisfactory performance up to 25% headwind and 10% crosswind. Similarly,
Santoso et al. [81] proposed a Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller to optimally
control the longitudinal flight channel of a fixed-wing UAV. Simulation results showed that
the LQG controller provides satisfactory altitude holding, takeoff, and landing performance.
Manjarrez et al. [82] designed the autonomous takeoff and landing control architecture
based on feedback linearization and PI controller. In the presence of winds, the performance
of the developed controller is satisfactory. Similarly, Lesprier et al. [83] designed an auto-
landing H∞ based controller for UAVs.
In regards to non-linear control techniques, Qayyum et al. [84] suggested a model
predictive controller (MPC) for the autonomous landing of UAV based on the Laguerre
function. A comparative analysis between MPC and PID was also carried out. The results
of the simulation demonstrated that the MPC controller outperformed the PID controller.
However, wind disturbances and gusts were not catered. Lungu [85] Lungu proposed
an auto-landing architecture for a tailless and blended-wing unmanned aerial vehicle
Drones 2023, 7, 339 6 of 21

subject to external disturbances and sensor measurement errors. The predetermined land-
ing trajectory is tracked using a backstepping-based attitude angle controller, a dynamic
inversion-based speed controller, and an adaptive disturbance observer for the estimation
of wind disturbances. Similarly, Zhu et al. [86] designed an active disturbance rejection
controller (ADRC) for a small fixed-wing UAV’s entire flight regime and compared the
simulated results to those of a PID controller. The simulation results demonstrated that
ADRC offers superior anti-interference capabilities in comparison to PID. The authors
also performed the flight experiments and illustrated that the ADRC controller showed
satisfactory performance on stability and tracking accuracy during landing in the pres-
ence of external disturbances. However, the ADRC controller was only designed for the
longitudinal UAV channel.

Figure 2. Model based and model free control algorithms [49].

The world is now shifting towards model-free/learning-based controllers. In contrast

to traditional controllers, model-free controllers don’t need any plant model. Instead, they
adapt their behavior based on what they have learned through experience. In this regard,
Nho et al. [87] presented a Fuzzy Logic based controller for the autonomous Landing of
UAVs. The designed controller was implemented on both the linear longitudinal and
6-DOF non-linear aircraft models. The designed controller was sufficiently robust to
provide excellent performance in terms of stability and low steady-state error. Similarly,
Kurnaz et al. [22] proposed a Fuzzy Logic based controller for the autonomous cruise and
landing of small, fixed-wing UAVs. Autonomous navigation on the pre-defined path was
also achieved by fuzzy logic-based systems. However, the effects of wind disturbances
were not catered for in this work. Details on the controllers utilized in autonomous UAVs
are provided in Table 2, along with an indication of the stages of flight in which these
controllers are utilized while Table 3 presents the advantages and disadvantages of the
control algorithm.
Drones 2023, 7, 339 7 of 21

Table 2. Control algorithms employed on fixed-wing UAV.

Flight Phase Control Technique Reference

PID [78,88–96]
Fuzzy Logic [97]
Sliding Mode Control [93,98,99]
Landing Model Predictive Control [84,90,100]
LQR [80,94,101–103]
Backstepping [104–106]
Feedback Linearization [101,105–107]
Adaptive Controller [108,109]
ADRC [86,88]
LQR [103]
ADRC [86]
Take-off LQG [81]
PID [95,96]
Adaptive Controller [108,109]
LQR [110]
Cruise
Feedback Linearization [111]

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of control algorithms.

Control Algorithms Advantages Disadvantages

Sensitive to noise and
PID Easy to implement and tune
disturbances
Provides optimal control Full state feedback is required,
LQR solutions, engineering friendly, requires an accurate model of
guarantees stability margins the system
Require accurate model of the
Handle uncertainties and system, computationally
H∞
disturbances expensive, tuning is very
time-consuming
Handle non-linear systems Stability issues if the transition
effectively, coverage of a wide between gains is not smooth,
Gain Scheduling
range of operating conditions slow and laborious design
and flight envelops is possible process
Can handle uncertain and Computationally expensive,
time-varying systems, can good knowledge of system
Adaptive Control
handle disturbances and dynamics is needed, tuning of
unmodeled system dynamics parameters requires expertise
Excellent tracking performance
Computationally expensive,
and disturbance rejection
requires an accurate
Backstepping capabilities, can handle
mathematical model of the
under-actuated systems
system
effectively
Can handle systems with
constraints on inputs and states, Performance depends heavily
Model Predictive Control can handle multivariable on the accuracy of the
control problems with multiple prediction model.
objectives
Handle non-linear systems
Require accurate mathematical
effectively, good tracking
Feedback Linearization model of the system,
performance and disturbance
computationally expensive
rejection capability
Drones 2023, 7, 339 8 of 21

Table 3. Cont.

Control Algorithms Advantages Disadvantages

Can handle uncertainties and
disturbances effectively, good
tracking performance,
Sliding Mode Control Chattering effect
disturbance rejection capability,
does not require an accurate
model of the plant

4. Exploration of State Estimation Techniques

UAVs rely heavily on state estimators, referred to as filters, to reliably estimate the
UAV’s internal states from sensor data. The real-time estimations of position, velocity,
orientation, and other critical variables provided by these estimators play a key part in UAV
navigation, control, and guidance. The main goal of incorporating a state estimator into the
GNC algorithm is to increase system dependability by mitigating noise in sensor readings
and accommodating sensor failures. Additionally, state estimators are also utilized for
sensor integration. A mathematical model of the plant is used by the state estimator to
predict the state based on previous states and the current control inputs and then adjusts its
prediction using available measurements to generate a more precise estimate of the plant
states. The quality of the sensor measurement data and the accuracy of the mathematical
model of the plant determine how accurate the state estimation will be. The Kalman filter
(KF) is frequently employed by researchers for accurate state estimates in systems when
sensor data are noisy or information about the state cannot be measured directly [68].
R.E. Kalman introduced the Kalman filter concept in his paper [112] on linear filtering.
This recursive algorithm predicts the state of the plant and then uses those predictions
together with data from the sensors to produce an accurate estimate. It has since been
the focus of numerous academic and practical applications. The Kalman filter (KF) has
multiple variants, including the extended Kalman Filter (EKF), the Unscented Kalman Filter
(UKF), and the Cubature Kalman Filter (CKF). These filters are employed in numerous
applications, including control systems, robotics, computer vision, and navigation [113].
In this regard, authors of [21,81,103,110,114] have employed the Kalman filter for state
estimation purposes. Yang et al. [115] present an EKF to estimate the complete state of
the UAV. The author’s estimation of attitude, velocity, position, airspeed, and horizontal
wind speed yields encouraging results. Lie et al. [116] calculated Airspeed, Angle of Attack,
and Side Slip Angle using the Extended Kalman filter, with a very low RMSE between the
real and estimated data. Similarly, authors of [111,117–121] used EKF for state estimation.
Xiaoqian et al. [122] present the design of a Cubature Kalman Filter (CKF) and Unscented
Kalman Filter (UKF) based attitude estimation algorithm for a fixed-wing unmanned aerial
vehicle. The simulation outcomes showed that CKF was better than UKF in accuracy,
robustness, non-linear performance, and estimation of attitude information. Similarly,
authors of [123] utilize CKF in UAV’s GNC algorithm.
Similarly, Marina et al. [124] proposed an AHRS based on a UKF using the Fast
Optimal Attitude Matrix (FOAM) algorithm as an observer model. UKF gave suitable
results for the attitude estimation of a lightweight fixed-wing UAV. In [125] author proposed
an AHRS based on the UKF using the three-axis attitude determination (TRAID) algorithm
as the observation model. The author also compared the performance of UKF with EKF.
The results indicated that the microcontroller’s real-time performance was satisfactory with
low computational complexity. Authors of [125] also used UKF in their work. The various
state estimators utilized in GNC of fixed-wing UAVs are summarised in Table 4. The
study of the relevant literature review reveals that many GNC algorithms were developed
and proposed without utilizing state estimators [22,78–80,82–84,86,89–102,105,108,109,126],
Reviewing the pertinent literature, we find that many GNC algorithms were created and
suggested without using state estimators, on the false premise that sensors are always
Drones 2023, 7, 339 9 of 21

present and free of noise, despite the fact that state estimators are of paramount significance
in UAV’s GNC algorithm.

Table 4. FlightGear and X-plane comparison.

Features FlightGear X-Plane

Product Price and availability Open source software (Free) Paid software (USD 59.99)
Operating System Linux, Windows, and MAC Linux, Windows, and MAC
Compared to FlightGear, they
have lesser airplanes available
Vast selection of
by default, a large collection of
Aircraft Catalogue user-contributed aircraft models
payware aircraft from
are available for free download
independent developers
are available
Flight dynamics model Use JBSim model Based on blade element theory
Easy integration with
Easy integration with
Co-simulation MATLAB/Simulink, batch file
MATLAB/Simulink
generation is required
High-quality graphics, use of
High-quality graphics, use of
HDR and PBR rendering for
OpenGL rendering engine, less
Scenery Quality realistic weather and detailed
detailed and realistic view than
texture, excellent depiction of
X-Plane, highly customizable
world and aircraft
Customization Highly customizable Less customizable

5. Simulation and User Adaptation Techniques

Tuning the gain of a flight controller is a laborious but essential component of its
design and development. The fine-tuning of controller gains requires extensive testing.
Tuning the controller’s parameters during actual flight is the ideal method, but it is also
quite time-consuming and costly. Model-in-loop simulations (MILS), software-in-loop
simulations (SILS), processor-in-loop simulations (PILS), and hardware-in-loop simulations
(HILS) are near-actual simulation techniques that can help speed up the process and reduce
the number of actual flight trails [37]. Furthermore, several visualization software are
employed to simulate flight conditions as close to real. The functionality and performance
of an algorithm can be tested by simulating a wide range of scenarios, including varying
weather and terrain variations.

5.1. Realistic Simulation Techniques

Model-in-Loop Simulation (MILS) is the first step in the design and development
of any flight controller. In MILS, a mathematical model of the actual plant which is to
be controlled is built in a simulation environment like MATLAB/Simulink. Next, the
controller model is constructed in the same simulation environment as the plant model,
and its performance (whether or not the controller is effective enough to control the
plant as planned) is evaluated. The main goal of MIL simulations is to identify potential
issues in the system, optimize system performance, and assess different design options
before committing to hardware implementation. MIL simulation offers a low-risk testing
environment, enabling engineers and researchers to test and refine system models without
placing physical systems at risk. This technique can save time and money by allowing
iterative design and testing cycles before the system is built. Nevertheless, MIL simulation
does have some limitations and challenges, such as the simulation’s accuracy is dependent
on the accuracy of the model, which can be challenging to develop for complex systems
and mathematical models not fully represent the actual physical model. A lot of research is
based only on Model-in-loop simulation (MILS). MILS was used by the authors of [80,94] to
validate the LQR controller’s performance in autonomous UAV landing. Similarly, authors
Drones 2023, 7, 339 10 of 21

of [22,78,81–84,89,91–93,98–102,104–107,109–111] performed MILS simulations to simulate

their controller’s performance. The MILS block diagram is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Model-in-loop architecture.

After achieving desirable results in MILS, the next step is to transition to Software-in-
the-Loop simulation (SILS). Instead of using a controller model, SILS relies on the C-code
of the controller block as depicted in Figure 4. The plant model is unaltered (same as MILS)
whereas the controller model is emulated in C code for SILS. SIL simulation is typically
performed to mimic the behavior of the embedded processor on which the developed
algorithm will eventually be deployed. SILS’s main objective is to check whether the
designed algorithm is software implementable or not? In this regard, Mathisen et al. [90]
used a non-linear MPC controller to achieve a precision deep-stall landing of a fixed-
wing UAV, and then validated the controller’s performance with Software-in-the-Loop
simulations. Authors of [37,127,128] used SILS to validate their designed algorithms.

Figure 4. Software-in-loop architecture.

Processor-in-the-Loop simulations (PILS) follow SILS. Similar to SILS, PILS involves

burning a controller model onto an embedded processor and then running a closed-loop
simulation of the simulated plant. Figure 5 depicts the PILS setup, with the controller model
code executing on hardware and plant operating in a simulated environment. PIL simula-
tion is an effective tool for system design and development that permits engineers to assess
and improve both the software as well as the hardware aspects of a system. When testing
whether a processor can reliably run the controller code without errors or delays, PILS
simulations prove invaluable. In this regard, You et al. [108] confirmed the controller’s effec-
tiveness during the take-off and landing of a fixed-wing UAV. Likewise, Ulker et al. [129]
conducted PILS for a fixed-wing UAV in windy conditions in various flight scenarios,
including straight-and-level flight, level climb, and turn. Similarly, authors of [130] used
PILS to validate their flight control algorithm and microcontroller’s performance.
Drones 2023, 7, 339 11 of 21

Figure 5. Processor-in-loop architecture.

Hardware-in-the-loop simulation comes after PILS has been effectively implemented.

Incorporating some physical components of the actual plant into the simulation loop is
the basic idea behind HILS. Actual plant hardware (servos, actuators) is employed in
the simulation loop instead of a mathematical model of the plant to verify the control
algorithm [131]. An example of adding a feedback servo motor in the feedback control loop
of a plant during HIL simulation is shown in Figure 6. HIL simulation can be utilized to
assess and verify the integration of a system’s software and hardware. This can assist in
identifying potential issues like different noises in the sensors and synchronization issues
between the components. Figure 7 depicts the HILS system’s fundamental block diagram.
The autonomous takeoff and landing of a UAV were simulated using Hardware-in-the-
Loop by Carnes [21]. Johnson et al. [132] utilized SILS and HILS for the verification of both
hardware and software changes before the flight and after gain adjustments for system
performance verification. Similarly, authors of [96,97,127,128,133,134] also performed
HIL simulations.

Figure 6. Feedback servo incorporated in the feedback control loop.

Drones 2023, 7, 339 12 of 21

Figure 7. Hardware-in-loop architecture.

5.2. User Adaptation Techniques

In the aviation industry, visualization software is used for training, research, and
development. However, actual flight testing is the most accurate method for tuning the
controller gain and validating the developed algorithms. Nevertheless, it is costly and
UAV flight testing can pose safety risks. In articles [86,88,95,103,108,134] the researchers
validated the performance of their controllers through an actual flight of fixed-wing UAVs.
However, in the majority of cases, flight testing is not a viable option. Flight testing
in a 3D virtual environment is considered a safer and more cost-effective method for
evaluating aircraft models and control systems. Flight simulators were initially utilized for
entertainment/gaming purposes before being put to use in the realm of virtual flight testing.
Matlab/Simulink has been interfaced with numerous flight simulators, including Xplane,
FlightGear, and Gazebo-ROS, in order to validate the GNC algorithms of aircraft in a virtual
test environment. Co-simulation combines the strengths of MATLAB/Simulink and other
flight visualization software to evaluate UAV models, their GNC algorithm, and other
algorithms during the design phase. These co-simulation techniques are currently used
as a safe substitute for actual flight evaluations. In this regard, Arif et al. [135] proposed a
simulation system using X-Plane 10, Python, and MATLAB to assess the controllability of
an aircraft. Using the X-Plane simulator, numerous aircraft configurations, system failures,
and environmental variables were simulated and tested. Similarly, Ribeiro et al. [136]
proposed a test platform to assess the autopilot control system. MATLAB / Simulink was
used to test the autopilot whereas X-Plane software was used to visualize the aircraft model.
Moreover, the authors also integrated a microcontroller to drive the aircraft actuator/servos.
Bulka and Nahon [134] implemented a flight controller for an agile fixed-wing UAV. The
controller was initially evaluated with HILS, and the results were then displayed with an
X-Plane simulator. Afterward, a successful actual flight test was carried out. Nugroho [137]
compared modern and conventional landing controllers for a fixed-wing UAV. X-Plane
simulator was utilized to visualize the landing of the UAV based on different controllers.
Similarly, Kaviyarasu et al. [37] verified their control and navigation algorithms using SILS
and X-Plane simulator.
Like Xplane, FlightGear is another extensively utilized flight simulator. The formation
flight of multiple fixed-wing UAVs was presented by Yang et al. [127]. SILS and HILS are
used to test the designed guidance and formation algorithms, along with Gazebo-ROS as
a 3D visualization software. Priyambodo and Majid [138] build UX-6 fixed-wing flight
models using analytical and empirical approaches. In this work, Simulink and FlightGear
simulators are used as visualization tools. Prabowo et al. [128] designed an image-based
Drones 2023, 7, 339 13 of 21

flight control system for a fixed-wing UAV. UAV tracks the target based on the features
in the image field captures by the camera. SILS and HILS were performed to validate the
control algorithm. In addition, the FlightGear software is utilized to show the UAV camera
view. Similarly, Sorton and Hammaker [133] tested the avionics and control system of a
small fixed-wing UAV using HILS and FlightGear simulator. Using FlightGear, Zhang et
al. [139] validated their designed control and navigation law. Several weather conditions
and types of terrain were utilized to test the algorithm. It was found that the difference
between the virtual flight and the real flight was negligible. Concluding from the above
discussion, the detailed comparison between the most commonly used flight simulators is
given in Table 4.

6. Existing Challenges and Way Forward

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been the subject of significant research for
more than a century, however, fully autonomous UAV flight because of its wide spectrum
and increasing complexities remains a challenging task. A lot of research work has been
carried out to theoretically examine UAV performance through 6-DOF/3-DOF simulations.
However, they lack the crucial analysis element of determining the algorithm’s hardware
implementation’s feasibility and viability for usage. This is crucial since simulation-based
work sometimes yields wildly different outcomes than that produced through actual
hardware implementation. Software in Loop (SILS), Process in Loop (PILS), and Hardware
in Loop (HILS) simulations are examples of near-real simulation techniques that help bridge
the performance gap between simulated and actual controller outputs. Additionally, the
use of visualization techniques such as Xplane, FlightGear and Gazebo-ROS as alternative
means of flight simulators is also non-existent.
The state estimator provides an estimate of the internal state of a plant based on
its input and output measurements. They’re crucial in cases where the system is sensor-
deficient, the sensor readings are noisy and to cater to sensor failures. Based on a review of
the relevant literature, it is apparent that only a small number of studies have consolidated
the estimation strategies available to the research community.
There have been several research contributions and control algorithms for autonomous
UAV flight, but very little comparative analysis of controller performance for the entire
flight regime has been published. This is crucial because each controller has its own pros and
cons. While the PID controller is intuitive to build, it lacks robustness; the LQR approach,
on the other hand, is an optimum and engineering-friendly controller but requires full-state
feedback. Likewise, the feedback-linearization controller can deal with the non-linearities
of the system, but at a considerable computational cost. Choosing the right controller for a
UAV is a challenging and time-consuming process that requires thorough knowledge of
UAV dynamics. This research shows that there is a dearth of performance comparisons
in the existing literature, especially when taking into account a similar baseline in which
multiple controllers are used to attain the same objective.
Based on the literature reviewed, it is evident that little research has been conducted
on the entire flight regime of a UAV (takeoff, mission, and landing). Despite the fact
that landing and takeoff are the most crucial phases of any autonomous fixed-wing UAV
operation, these phases have been the subject of limited research. Furthermore, examination
‘of’ the impact of wind disturbances and other exogenous inputs is most critical in these
flight phases.

Future Work Directions

This section provides a brief summary of recommendations and potential future re-
search directions. The employment of realistic simulation techniques must be emphasized
as they bring different components of the architecture within the framework of actual de-
velopment. This will help validate the performance of the designed algorithm on an actual
onboard processor, evaluate propagation delays, and verify the computational aspects of
flight controllers [17]. Furthermore, many different flight simulators are available with
Drones 2023, 7, 339 14 of 21

user-friendly interfaces that can be used for co-simulation. Saving resources and improving
flying performance are two benefits of using a flight simulator during the UAV’s design
phase. With these tools, researchers can analyze the UAV’s performance in a number of
scenarios, and they help to detect potential issues well before the development of the actual
prototype. Therefore, researchers engaged in the design and development of UAVs should
take advantage of available visualization software. Moreover, state estimators/observers
should be employed whenever designing the GNC algorithm for a UAV. As the majority
of sensors produce noisy output data in practical scenarios. Therefore, the UAV’s GNC
algorithm must be robust and include state estimators to handle sensor failure and noisy
measurements. In this regard future work should be focused on the advancement of both
model-based and data-driven estimation algorithms.
It is also recommended to investigate multiple control algorithms and compare the
efficacy of various controllers. It is important to investigate the computational cost and
the benefits of various control algorithms in various flight phases. In addition, the control
algorithm must be sufficiently generic and robust to handle the entire flight regime of a UAV.
In this regard, the exploration of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms will
enable aerial vehicles to make complex decisions in a variety of environments. Moreover,
the utilization of feedback servos for UAV applications is the most recent trend and presents
major advantages over traditional servos. In comparison to traditional servos, feedback
servos offer better accuracy, stability, and reliability, making them the superior choice for
UAV applications.
To enable autonomous situational awareness in UAVs, more study of emerging tech-
nologies like edge computing and drone swarm data communication is required. Au-
tonomous situational awareness is crucial for the safe operation of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), especially in environments with limited or nonexistent network coverage.

Illustration for Further Work

Figure 8 depicts a graphical representation of the probable direction for future research
catering to the highlighted aspects. The authors are developing an HILS-based GNC
algorithm for a fixed-wing UAV covering its all flight phases in order to address the missing
links. The prototype fixed-wing UAV model used has a wing span and chord length of 3
and 1.5 m, respectively. The UAV dynamics model is simulated in MATLAB/SIMULINK.
As a first step, a nonlinear total energy-based guidance and control algorithm has been
developed for autonomous take-off, loiter, and landing. The block diagram of the current
work is shown in Figure 9.
MILS, SILS and PILS were performed to check the efficacy of the designed control
algorithm. The performance of the designed controller in MILS and HILS (only feedback
servos were incorporated) is shown in Figure 10. The selection of feedback servo motors de-
pends upon the UAV dynamics/type. High-fidelity feedback servo motors were integrated
with the microcontroller. Figure 10 shows the feedback servo lag that was found during
the aforementioned work, providing further evidence for the necessity of employing SILS,
PILS, and HILS before actual implementation/flight. In the next step, we will integrate
sensors and check the performance of the designed algorithm using a 3D axis rotation
table. After the completion of the work, the complete results along with the findings will
be shared with the research community.
Drones 2023, 7, 339 15 of 21

Figure 8. The proposed future work direction.

Figure 9. Current work control architecture.

Figure 10. Flight control response with and without servos-in-loop.

7. Conclusions
All flying phases, but especially take-off and landing, are crucial for a fully autonomous
UAV. The literature review and cited papers necessitated a centralized platform connecting
relevant studies and filling in the missing link. Several crucial aspects need additional
consideration, including the absence of a comparative analysis between controllers that
can be used in different phases, a review of estimating methodologies, and a near-actual
implementation of the suggested control algorithms. This research seeks to address these
gaps. This review paper provides a comprehensive analysis of current research on control
algorithms, estimate techniques, and simulation methodologies. The limitations are pre-
sented by consolidating the details and analyzing them separately. Additionally, we offered
Drones 2023, 7, 339 16 of 21

future research areas that can be implemented for realistic simulations utilizing SILS, PILS,
and HILS before actual hardware implementation. In addition, the use of visualization
software during different design phases of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can expedite
the development process by allowing researchers to evaluate the UAV’s behavior under
various kinds of environmental effects and diagnose problems before constructing the ac-
tual prototype. Insight into future research directions for autonomous flight of fixed-wing
UAVs will be provided by this study. This study will serve as a foundation for future
research on UAV autonomous flight.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.T. and I.M.; methodology, I.M. and T.U.I.; software,
M.A.T. and I.M.; validation, I.M. and T.U.I.; formal analysis, M.A.T. and I.M.; investigation, M.A.T.,
I.M. and T.U.I.; resources, I.M. and T.U.I.; writing-original draft preparation, M.A.T.; writing-review
and editing, I.M. and T.U.I.; visualization and supervision, I.M. and T.U.I.; project administration,
I.M.; funding acquisition, M.A.T., I.M. and T.U.I.. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The project was not funded by any institute. The APC was provided by the National
University of Sciences and Technology.
Data Availability Statement: The data can be acquired on reasonable request from the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest to declare.

References
1. Mir, I.; Gul, F.; Eisa, S.; Maqsood, A.; Mir, S. Contraction analysis of dynamic soaring. In Proceedings of the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology (AIAA SCITECH), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 January 2022; p. 0881.
2. Mir, I.; Gul, F.; Eisa, S.; Taha, H.E.; Mir, S. On the stability of dynamic soaring: Floquet-based investigation. In Proceedings of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology (AIAA SCITECH), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 January
2022; p. 0882.
3. Mir, I.; Maqsood, A.; Eisa, S.A.; Taha, H.; Akhtar, S. Optimal morphing–Augmented dynamic soaring maneuvers for unmanned
air vehicle capable of span and sweep morphologies. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 79, 17–36. [CrossRef]
4. Mir, I.; Taha, H.; Eisa, S.A.; Maqsood, A. A controllability perspective of dynamic soaring. Nonlinear Dyn. 2018, 94, 2347–2362.
[CrossRef]
5. Mir, I.; Maqsood, A.; Akhtar, S. Optimization of dynamic soaring maneuvers to enhance endurance of a versatile UAV. Inst. Phys.
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 211, 012010. [CrossRef]
6. Paucar, C.; Morales, L.; Pinto, K.; Sánchez, M.; Rodríguez, R.; Gutierrez, M.; Palacios, L. Use of drones for surveillance and
reconnaissance of military areas. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Research Applied to Defense and Security,
Salinas, Ecuador, 18–20 April 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 119–132. [CrossRef]
7. van Lieshout, M.; Friedewald, M. Drones–dull, dirty or dangerous?: The social construction of privacy and security technologies.
In Socially Responsible Innovation in Security; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; pp. 25–43. [CrossRef]
8. Li, H.; Savkin, A.V. Wireless sensor network based navigation of micro flying robots in the industrial internet of things. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 3524–3533. [CrossRef]
9. Mir, I.; Eisa, S.A.; Taha, H.; Maqsood, A.; Akhtar, S.; Islam, T.U. A stability perspective of bioinspired unmanned aerial vehicles
performing optimal dynamic soaring. Bioinspiration Biomim. 2021, 16, 066010. [CrossRef]
10. Savkin, A.V.; Huang, H. A method for optimized deployment of a network of surveillance aerial drones. IEEE Syst. J. 2019,
13, 4474–4477. [CrossRef]
11. Huang, H.; Savkin, A.V. An algorithm of reactive collision free 3-D deployment of networked unmanned aerial vehicles for
surveillance and monitoring. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 16, 132–140. [CrossRef]
12. Madridano, Á.; Al-Kaff, A.; Martín, D.; de la Escalera, A. Trajectory planning for multi-robot systems: Methods and applications.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 173, 114660. [CrossRef]
13. Huang, H.; Savkin, A.V. Towards the internet of flying robots: A survey. Sensors 2018, 18, 4038. [CrossRef]
14. Pajares, G. Overview and current status of remote sensing applications based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Photogramm.
Eng. Remote Sens. 2015, 81, 281–330. [CrossRef]
15. Chen, Y.; Rosolia, U.; Ames, A.D. Decentralized Task and Path Planning for Multi-Robot Systems. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2021,
6, 4337–4344. [CrossRef]
16. Manchester, Z.; Peck, M. Stochastic space exploration with microscale spacecraft. In Proceedings of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology (AIAA) Guidance, Navigation, and Control, Portland, OR, USA, 8–11
August 2011; p. 6648.
Drones 2023, 7, 339 17 of 21

17. Louali, R.; Gacem, H.; Elouardi, A.; Bouaziz, S. Implementation of an UAV Guidance, Navigation and Control System based
on the CAN data bus: Validation using a Hardware In the Loop Simulation. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Munich, Germany, 3–7 July 2017; pp. 1418–1423.
18. Jin, X.B.; Robert Jeremiah, R.J.; Su, T.L.; Bai, Y.T.; Kong, J.L. The new trend of state estimation: from model-driven to hybrid-driven
methods. Sensors 2021, 21, 2085. [CrossRef]
19. Khamseh, H.B.; Janabi-Sharifi, F.; Abdessameud, A. Aerial manipulation—A literature survey. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2018,
107, 221–235. [CrossRef]
20. Raja, M.M. Extended Kalman Filter and LQR Controller Design for Quadrotor UAVs. Master’s Thesis, Wright State University,
Dayton, OH, USA, 2017.
21. Carnes, T. A Low Cost Implementation of Autonomous Takeoff and Landing for a Fixed Wing UAV. Master’s Thesis, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA, 2014.
22. Kurnaz, S.; Çetin, O. Autonomous navigation and landing tasks for fixed wing small unmanned aerial vehicles. Acta Polytech.
Hung. 2010, 7, 87–102.
23. Mir, I.; Eisa, S.A.; Maqsood, A. Review of dynamic soaring: technical aspects, nonlinear modeling perspectives and future
directions. Nonlinear Dyn. 2018, 94, 3117–3144. [CrossRef]
24. Mir, I.; Maqsood, A.; Akhtar, S. Biologically inspired dynamic soaring maneuvers for an unmanned air vehicle capable of sweep
morphing. Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 2018, 19, 1006–1016. [CrossRef]
25. Mir, I.; Maqsood, A.; Akhtar, S. Dynamic modeling & stability analysis of a generic UAV in glide phase. In Proceedings of the
Materials science, Engineering and Chemistry (MATEC Web of Conferences). Engineering Design Process (EDP) Sciences, Sibiu,
Romania, 7–9 June 2017; Volume 114, p. 01007.
26. Wadood, A.; Anavatti, S.; Hassanein, O. Robust controller design for an autonomous underwater vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2017
Ninth International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI), Doha, Qatar, 4–6 February 2017; pp. 237–244.
27. Gul, F.; Rahiman, W.; Alhady, S.N.; Ali, A.; Mir, I.; Jalil, A. Meta-heuristic approach for solving multi-objective path planning for
autonomous guided robot using PSO–GWO optimization algorithm with evolution ary programming. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz.
Comput. 2020, 12, 7873–7890. [CrossRef]
28. Gul, F.; Mir, I.; Rahiman, W.; Islam, T.U. Novel Implementation of Multi-Robot Space Exploration Utilizing Coordinated
Multi-Robot Exploration and Frequency Modified Whale Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 22774–22787. [CrossRef]
29. Gul, F.; Mir, I.; Abualigah, L.; Sumari, P.; Forestiero, A. A Consolidated Review of Path Planning and Optimization Techniques:
Technical Perspectives and Future Directions. Electronics 2021, 10, 2250. [CrossRef]
30. Das, P.; Behera, H.; Panigrahi, B. Intelligent-based multi-robot path planning inspired by improved classical Q-learning and
improved particle swarm optimization with perturbed velocity. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016, 19, 651–669. [CrossRef]
31. Gul, F.; Rahiman, W.; Nazli Alhady, S.S. A comprehensive study for robot navigation techniques. Cogent Eng. 2019, 6, 1632046.
[CrossRef]
32. Gul, F.; Mir, I.; Abualigah, L.; Sumari, P. Multi-Robot Space Exploration: An Augmented Arithmetic Approach. IEEE Access 2021,
9, 107738–107750. [CrossRef]
33. Gul, F.; Mir, S.; Mir, I. Coordinated Multi-Robot Exploration: Hybrid Stochastic Optimization Approach. In Proceedings of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology (AIAA SCITECH Forum), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7
January 2022; p. 1414.
34. Gul, F.; Mir, S.; Mir, I. Multi Robot Space Exploration: A Modified Frequency Whale Optimization Approach. In Proceedings of
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology (AIAA SCITECH Forum), San Diego, CA, USA,
3–7 January 2022; p. 1416.
35. Szczepanski, R.; Bereit, A.; Tarczewski, T. Efficient Local Path Planning Algorithm Using Artificial Potential Field Supported by
Augmented Reality. Energies 2021, 14, 6642. [CrossRef]
36. Szczepanski, R.; Tarczewski, T. Global path planning for mobile robot based on Artificial Bee Colony and Dijkstra’s algorithms.
In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 19th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference (PEMC), Gliwice, Poland,
25–29 April 2021; pp. 724–730.
37. Kaviyarasu, A.; Saravanakumar, A.; Logavenkatesh, M. Software in Loop Simulation based Waypoint Navigation for Fixed Wing
UAV. Def. Sci. J. 2021, 71, 448–455. [CrossRef]
38. ud Din, A.F.; Mir, I.; Gul, F.; Mir, S.; Saeed, N.; Althobaiti, T.; Abbas, S.M.; Abualigah, L. Deep Reinforcement Learning for
integrated non-linear control of autonomous UAVs. Processes 2022, 10, 1307. [CrossRef]
39. Vidal Morató, J.; Gomáriz Castro, S.; Manuel Lázaro, A. Autonomous Underwater Vehicle control. Instrum. Viewp. 2005, 4, 10.
40. Dadkhah, N.; Mettler, B. Survey of motion planning literature in the presence of uncertainty: Considerations for UAV guidance.
J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2012, 65, 233–246. [CrossRef]
41. Puri, A. A Survey of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for Traffic Surveillance; Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of South Florida: Tampa, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 1–29.
42. Ollero, A.; Merino, L. Control and perception techniques for aerial robotics. Annu. Rev. Control 2004, 28, 167–178. [CrossRef]
43. Chen, H.; Wang, X.M.; Li, Y. A survey of autonomous control for UAV. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, Shanghai, China, 7–8 November 2009; Volume 2, pp. 267–271.
Drones 2023, 7, 339 18 of 21

44. Emami, S.A.; Castaldi, P.; Banazadeh, A. Neural network-based flight control systems: Present and future. Annu. Rev. Control.
2022, 53, 97–137. [CrossRef]
45. Budiyono, A. Recent advances in control and instrumentation of unmanned aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Instrumentation and Control, Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia, 19 February 2007; pp. 19–20.
46. Chao, H.; Cao, Y.; Chen, Y. Autopilots for small unmanned aerial vehicles: A survey. Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst. 2010, 8, 36–44.
[CrossRef]
47. Gautam, A.; Sujit, P.; Saripalli, S. A survey of autonomous landing techniques for UAVs. In Proceedings of the 2014 International
Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Orlando, FL, USA, 27–30 May 2014; pp. 1210–1218.
48. Nguyen, H.T.; Quyen, T.V.; Nguyen, C.V.; Le, A.M.; Tran, H.T.; Nguyen, M.T. Control algorithms for UAVs: A comprehensive
survey. EAI Endorsed Trans. Ind. Networks Intell. Syst. 2020, 7, e5. [CrossRef]
49. Gu, W.; Valavanis, K.P.; Rutherford, M.J.; Rizzo, A. UAV model-based flight control with artificial neural networks: A survey. J.
Intell. Robot. Syst. 2020, 100, 1469–1491. [CrossRef]
50. Michailidis, M.G.; Rutherford, M.J.; Valavanis, K.P. A survey of controller designs for new generation UAVs: The challenge of
uncertain aerodynamic parameters. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 2020, 18, 801–816. [CrossRef]
51. Zuo, Z.; Liu, C.; Han, Q.L.; Song, J. Unmanned aerial vehicles: Control methods and future challenges. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin.
2022, 9, 601–614. [CrossRef]
52. Chandar, E.A.S. A Review on Longitudinal Control Law Design for a Small Fixed-Wing UAV. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET)
2022, 9, 197–202.
53. Goerzen, C.; Kong, Z.; Mettler, B. A survey of motion planning algorithms from the perspective of autonomous UAV guidance. J.
Intell. Robot. Syst. 2010, 57, 65–100. [CrossRef]
54. Quan, L.; Han, L.; Zhou, B.; Shen, S.; Gao, F. Survey of UAV motion planning. IET Cyber-Syst. Robot. 2020, 2, 14–21. [CrossRef]
55. Israr, A.; Ali, Z.A.; Alkhammash, E.H.; Jussila, J.J. Optimization methods applied to motion planning of unmanned aerial vehicles:
A review. Drones 2022, 6, 126. [CrossRef]
56. Iqbal, M.M.; Ali, Z.A.; Khan, R.; Shafiq, M. Motion Planning of UAV Swarm: Recent Challenges and Approaches. In Aeronautics-
New Advances; IntechOpen: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [CrossRef]
57. Adams, S.M.; Friedland, C.J. A survey of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) usage for imagery collection in disaster research and
management. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Remote Sensing for Disaster Response, Stanford, CA, USA,
15–16 September 2011; Volume 8, pp. 1–8.
58. Nex, F.; Remondino, F. UAV for 3D mapping applications: A review. Appl. Geomat. 2014, 6, 1–15. [CrossRef]
59. Cai, G.; Dias, J.; Seneviratne, L. A survey of small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles: Recent advances and future development
trends. Unmanned Syst. 2014, 2, 175–199. [CrossRef]
60. Menouar, H.; Guvenc, I.; Akkaya, K.; Uluagac, A.S.; Kadri, A.; Tuncer, A. UAV-enabled intelligent transportation systems for the
smart city: Applications and challenges. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 22–28. [CrossRef]
61. Srivastava, S.; Narayan, S.; Mittal, S. A survey of deep learning techniques for vehicle detection from UAV images. J. Syst. Archit.
2021, 117, 102152. [CrossRef]
62. Albaker, B.; Rahim, N. A survey of collision avoidance approaches for unmanned aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2009
International Conference for Technical Postgraduates (TECHPOS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 14–15 December 2009; pp. 1–7.
63. Pham, H.; Smolka, S.A.; Stoller, S.D.; Phan, D.; Yang, J. A survey on unmanned aerial vehicle collision avoidance systems. arXiv
2015, arXiv:1508.07723.
64. Lu, Y.; Xue, Z.; Xia, G.S.; Zhang, L. A survey on vision-based UAV navigation. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 2018, 21, 21–32. [CrossRef]
65. Elmokadem, T.; Savkin, A.V. Towards fully autonomous UAVs: A survey. Sensors 2021, 21, 6223. [CrossRef]
66. Santoso, F.; Garratt, M.A.; Anavatti, S.G. State-of-the-art integrated guidance and control systems in unmanned vehicles: A
review. IEEE Syst. J. 2020, 15, 3312–3323. [CrossRef]
67. Chai, R.; Tsourdos, A.; Savvaris, A.; Chai, S.; Xia, Y.; Chen, C.P. Review of advanced guidance and control algorithms for
space/aerospace vehicles. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2021, 122, 100696. [CrossRef]
68. Emer, N.; Özbek, N. A survey on Kalman Filtering for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Recent Trends, Applications, and Challenges.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Technologies (ICENTE’20), Konya, Turkey, 19–21 November 2020.
69. Vaigandla, K.K.; Thatipamula, S.; Karne, R.K. Investigation on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV): An Overview. IRO J. Sustain.
Wirel. Syst. 2022, 4, 130–148. [CrossRef]
70. Ebeid, E.; Skriver, M.; Jin, J. A survey on open-source flight control platforms of unmanned aerial vehicle. In Proceedings of the
2017 Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD), Vienna, Austria, 30 August–1 September 2017; pp. 396–402.
71. Sachs, G.; Traugott, J.; Nesterova, A.P.; Dell’Omo, G.; Kümmeth, F.; Heidrich, W.; Vyssotski, A.L.; Bonadonna, F. Flying at no
mechanical energy cost: disclosing the secret of wandering albatrosses. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41449. [CrossRef]
72. Zhao, Y.J. Optimal patterns of glider dynamic soaring. Optim. Control. Appl. Methods 2004, 25, 67–89. [CrossRef]
73. Beard, R.W.; McLain, T.W. Small Unmanned Aircraft: Theory and Practice; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012.
74. Stevens, B.L.; Lewis, F.L.; Johnson, E.N. Aircraft Control and Simulation: Dynamics, Controls Design, and Autonomous Systems; John
Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
75. Din, A.F.U.; Mir, I.; Gul, F.; Nasar, A.; Rustom, M.; Abualigah, L. Reinforced Learning-Based Robust Control Design for Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 48, 1221–1236. [CrossRef]
Drones 2023, 7, 339 19 of 21

76. Szczepanski, R.; Tarczewski, T.; Grzesiak, L.M. Adaptive state feedback speed controller for PMSM based on Artificial Bee Colony
algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2019, 83, 105644. [CrossRef]
77. Mir, I.; Maqsood, A.; Taha, H.E.; Eisa, S.A. Soaring Energetics for a Nature Inspired Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. In Proceedings of
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology (AIAA SCITECH Forum), San Diego, CA, USA,
7–11 January 2019; p. 1622.
78. Chen, K. The design of longitudinal autonomous landing control for a fixed wing Unmanned Aerial vehicle. In Proceedings of
the 2021 4th World Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Intelligent Manufacturing (WCMEIM), Shanghai, China, 12–14
November 2021; pp. 120–127.
79. Poksawat, P.; Wang, L.; Mohamed, A. Gain scheduled attitude control of fixed-wing UAV with automatic controller tuning. IEEE
Trans. Control. Syst. Technol. 2017, 26, 1192–1203. [CrossRef]
80. Jetley, P.; Sujit, P.; Saripalli, S. Safe landing of fixed wing UAVs. In Proceedings of the 2017 47th Annual IEEE/IFIP International
Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSN-W), Denver, CO, USA, 26–29 June 2017; pp. 2–9.
81. Santoso, F.; Liu, M.; Egan, G. Linear quadratic optimal control synthesis for a uav. In Proceedings of the 12th Australian
International Aerospace Congress, AIAC12, Melbourne, Australia, 19–22 March 2007.
82. Manjarrez, H.; Davila, J.; Lozano, R. Low level control architecture for automatic takeoff and landing of fixed wing UAV. In
Proceedings of the 2018 Annual American Control Conference (ACC), Milwaukee, WI, USA, 27–29 June 2018; pp. 6737–6742.
83. Lesprier, J.; Biannic, J.M.; Roos, C. Nonlinear structured H∞ controllers for parameter-dependent uncertain systems with
application to aircraft landing. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Control Applications (CCA), Juan Les Antibes,
France, 8–10 October 2014; pp. 433–438.
84. Qayyum, N.; Bhatti, A.I.; Liaquat, M. Landing control of unmanned aerial vehicle using continuous model predictive control. In
Proceedings of the 2017 29th Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC), Chongqing, China, 28–30 May 2017; pp. 1804–1808.
85. Lungu, M. Backstepping and dynamic inversion control techniques for automatic landing of fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicles.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 120, 107261. [CrossRef]
86. Zhu, G.; Qi, J.; Wu, C. Landing control of fixed-wing uav based on adrc. In Proceedings of the 2019 Chinese Control Conference
(CCC), Guangzhou, China, 27–30 July 2019; pp. 8020–8025.
87. Nho, K.; Agarwal, R.K. Automatic landing system design using fuzzy logic. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2000, 23, 298–304. [CrossRef]
88. Zhang, D.; Wang, X. Autonomous landing control of fixed-wing uavs: from theory to field experiment. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2017,
88, 619–634. [CrossRef]
89. Jantawong, J.; Deelertpaiboon, C. Automatic landing control based on GPS for fixed-wing aircraft. In Proceedings of the 2018
15th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology
(ECTI-CON), Chiang Rai, Thailand, 18–21 July 2018; pp. 313–316.
90. Mathisen, S.; Gryte, K.; Gros, S.; Johansen, T.A. Precision deep-stall landing of fixed-wing UAVs using nonlinear model predictive
control. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2021, 101, 1–15. [CrossRef]
91. Hsiao, F.B.; Chan, W.L.; Lai, Y.C.; Tseng, L.C.; Hsieh, S.Y.; Tenn, H.K. Landing longitudinal control system design for a fixed
wing UAV. In Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2007; p. 868.
[CrossRef]
92. Prach, A.; Gürsoy, G.; Yavrucuk, L. Nonlinear Controller for a Fixed-Wing Aircraft Landing. In Proceedings of the 2019 American
Control Conference (ACC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 10–12 July 2019; pp. 2897–2902.
93. Rao, D.V.; Go, T.H. Automatic landing system design using sliding mode control. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2014, 32, 180–187.
94. de Sousa Pereira, J.J.V.; Automatic Landing Control Design for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Master’s Thesis, Universidade do Porto, Porto,
Portugal, 2016. Available online: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/85551/2/146173.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2023).
95. Daibing, Z.; Xun, W.; Weiwei, K. Autonomous control of running takeoff and landing for a fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicle.
In Proceedings of the 2012 12th International Conference on Control Automation Robotics & Vision (ICARCV), Guangzhou,
China, 5–7 December 2012; pp. 990–994.
96. Carnes, T.W.; Bakker, T.M.; Klenke, R.H. A fully parameterizable implementation of autonomous take-off and landing for a fixed
wing UAV. Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and Technology Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 5–9 January 2015; p. 0603.
97. Lai, Y.C.; Chan, K.C.; Liu, Y.C.; Hsiao, F.B. Development of an automatic landing system based on adaptive fuzzy logic control for
fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles. J. Aeronaut. Astronaut. Aviat. 2016, 48, 183–194.
98. Zheng, Z.; Jin, Z.; Sun, L.; Zhu, M. Adaptive sliding mode relative motion control for autonomous carrier landing of fixed-wing
unmanned aerial vehicles. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 5556–5565. [CrossRef]
99. Mahmood, A.; Bhatti, A.I.; Siddique, B.A. Landing of Aircraft Using Integral State Feedback Sliding Mode Control. In Proceedings
of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE), Swat, Pakistan, 24–25
July 2019; pp. 1–6.
100. Mathisen, S.H.; Fossen, T.I.; Johansen, T.A. Non-linear model predictive control for guidance of a fixed-wing UAV in precision
deep stall landing. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Denver, CO,
USA, 9–12 June 2015, pp. 356–365.
101. Ishioka, S.; Uchiyama, K.; Masuda, K. Landing System Using Extended Dynamic Window Approach For Fixed-Wing UAV. In
Proceedings of the 32nd Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Shanghai, China, 6–10 September 2021.
Drones 2023, 7, 339 20 of 21

102. Xu, J.; Keshmiri, S. Dubins-Based Autolanding Procedure for Fixed-Wing UAS. In Proceedings of the 2021 International
Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Athens, Greece, 15–18 June 2021; pp. 146–154.
103. Cho, A.; Kim, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, B.; Park, N.; Kim, D.; Kee, C. Fully automatic taxiing, takeoff and landing of a UAV based on a
single-antenna GNSS receiver. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2008, 41, 4719–4724. [CrossRef]
104. Yoon, S.H.; Kim, Y.D.; Park, S.H. Constrained adaptive backstepping controller design for aircraft landing in wind disturbance
and actuator stuck. Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 2012, 13, 74–89. [CrossRef]
105. Lungu, M. Auto-landing of fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicles using the backstepping control. ISA Trans. 2019, 95, 194–210.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Lungu, M. Backstepping and dynamic inversion combined controller for auto-landing of fixed wing UAVs. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
2020, 96, 105526. [CrossRef]
107. prasad B, B.; Pradeep, S. Automatic landing system design using feedback linearization method. In Proceedings of the AIAA
infotech@ Aerospace 2007 Conference and Exhibit, Rohnert Park, CA, USA, 7–10 May 2007; p. 2733.
108. You, D.I.; Jung, Y.D.; Cho, S.W.; Shin, H.M.; Lee, S.H.; Shim, D.H. A guidance and control law design for precision automatic
take-off and landing of fixed-wing UAVs. In Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Science and
Technology Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 13–16 August 2012; p. 4674.
109. Chunlei, D.; Qingbo, G.; Qing, F. High performance L 1 adaptive take-off and landing controller design for fixed-wing UAV. In
Proceedings of the 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Hangzhou, China, 28–30 July 2015; pp. 3091–3096.
110. Hajiyev, C.; Vural, S.Y. LQR controller with Kalman estimator applied to UAV longitudinal dynamics. Positioning 2013, 4, 36–41.
[CrossRef]
111. Homayouni Amlashi, A.; Mojed Gharamaleki, R.; Hamidi Nejad, M.H.; Mirzaei, M. Design of estimator-based nonlinear dynamic
inversion controller and nonlinear regulator for robust trajectory tracking with aerial vehicles. Int. J. Dyn. Control 2018, 6, 707–725.
[CrossRef]
112. Kalman, R.E. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J. Basic Eng. 1960, 82, 35–45. [CrossRef]
113. Khodarahmi, M.; Maihami, V. A Review on Kalman Filter Models. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2022, 30, 727–747. [CrossRef]
114. Borup, K.T.; Stovner, B.N.; Fossen, T.I.; Johansen, T.A. Kalman filters for air data system bias correction for a fixed-wing UAV.
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2019, 28, 2164–2176. [CrossRef]
115. Yang, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, W. Model-Free Integrated Navigation of Small Fixed-Wing UAVs Full State Estimation
in Wind Disturbance. IEEE Sens. J. 2022, 22, 2771–2781. [CrossRef]
116. Lie, F.A.P.; Gebre-Egziabher, D. Synthetic air data system. J. Aircr. 2013, 50, 1234–1249. [CrossRef]
117. Warsi, F.A.; Hazry, D.; Ahmed, S.F.; Joyo, M.K.; Tanveer, M.H.; Kamarudin, H.; Razlan, Z.M. Yaw, Pitch and Roll controller design
for fixed-wing UAV under uncertainty and perturbed condition. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 10th International Colloquium
on Signal Processing and Its Applications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7–9 March 2014; pp. 151–156.
118. Pettersson, M. Extended Kalman Filter for Robust UAV Attitude Estimation. Master’s Thesis, Department of Electrical
Engineering, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden, 2015; p. 86.
119. Magnusson, T. State Estimation of Uav Using Extended Kalman Filter. Master’s Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Automatic Control, The Institute of Technology, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden, 2013, p. 76.
120. Hervas, J.R.; Reyhanoglu, M.; Tang, H.; Kayacan, E. Nonlinear control of fixed-wing UAVs in presence of stochastic winds.
Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2016, 33, 57–69. [CrossRef]
121. Yin, X.; Peng, X.; Zhang, G.; Che, B.; Tang, M. Research on Attitude Control System Design and Flight Experiments of Small-scale
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2022 34th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Hefei, China,
15–17 August 2022; pp. 5866–5871.
122. Xiaoqian, T.; Feicheng, Z.; Zhengbing, T.; Hongying, W. Nonlinear Extended Kalman Filter for Attitude Estimation of the
Fixed-Wing UAV. Int. J. Opt. 2022, 2022, 7883851. [CrossRef]
123. Yu, Y.j.; Zhang, X.; Khan, M.S.A. Attitude heading reference algorithm based on transformed cubature Kalman filter. Meas.
Control 2020, 53, 1446–1453. [CrossRef]
124. De Marina, H.G.; Espinosa, F.; Santos, C. Adaptive UAV attitude estimation employing unscented Kalman filter, FOAM and
low-cost MEMS sensors. Sensors 2012, 12, 9566–9585. [CrossRef]
125. De Marina, H.G.; Pereda, F.J.; Giron-Sierra, J.M.; Espinosa, F. UAV attitude estimation using unscented Kalman filter and TRIAD.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 59, 4465–4474. [CrossRef]
126. Burchett, B.T. Feedback linearization guidance for approach and landing of reusable launch vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2005,
American Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 8–10 June 2005; pp. 2093–2097.
127. Yang, J.; Thomas, A.G.; Singh, S.; Baldi, S.; Wang, X. A semi-physical platform for guidance and formations of fixed-wing
unmanned aerial vehicles. Sensors 2020, 20, 1136. [CrossRef]
128. Prabowo, Y.A.; Trilaksono, B.R.; Triputra, F.R. Hardware in-the-loop simulation for visual servoing of fixed wing UAV. In
Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on electrical engineering and informatics (ICEEI), Denpasar, Indonesia, 10–11
August 2015; pp. 247–252.
129. Ülker, H.; Baykara, C.; Özsoy, C. PIL simulations of an FWUAV under windy conditions. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 2018,
90, 461–470. [CrossRef]
Drones 2023, 7, 339 21 of 21

130. Santos, M.H.; Oliveira, N.M.; D’Amore, R. From Control Requirements to PIL Test: Development of a Structure to Autopilot
Implementation. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 154788–154803. [CrossRef]
131. Bacic, M. On hardware-in-the-loop simulation. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Seville, Spain, 12–15 December 2005; pp. 3194–3198.
132. Johnson, E.N.; Fontaine, S. Use of flight simulation to complement flight testing of low-cost UAVs. In Proceedings of the AIAA
Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 6–9 August 2001.
133. Sorton, E.; Hammaker, S. Simulated flight testing of an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle using flightgear. In Proceedings of
the Infotech@ Aerospace, , Arlington, VA, USA, 26–29 September 2005; p. 7083.
134. Bulka, E.; Nahon, M. Autonomous fixed-wing aerobatics: from theory to flight. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Brisbane, Australia, 21–25 May 2018; pp. 6573–6580.
135. Arif, A.; Sasongko, R.; Stepen. Numerical Simulation Platform for a Generic Aircraft Flight Dynamic Simulation. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Aviation Technology and Management 2018 (ICATeM 2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12–14
September 2018. [CrossRef]
136. Ribeiro, L.R.; Oliveira, N.M.F. UAV autopilot controllers test platform using Matlab/Simulink and X-Plane. In Proceedings of the
2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Arlington, VA, USA, 27–30 October 2010; Session: S2H.
137. Nugroho, L. Comparison of classical and modern landing control system for a small unmanned aerial vehicle. In Proceedings of
the 2014 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and Its Applications (IC3INA), Bandung, Indonesia, 21–23
October 2014; pp. 187–192.
138. Priyambodo, T.K.; Majid, A. Modeling and simulation of the UX-6 fixed-wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. J. Control Autom. Electr.
Syst. 2021, 32, 1344–1355. [CrossRef]
139. Zhang, J.; Geng, Q.; Fei, Q. UAV flight control system modeling and simulation based on FlightGear. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Automatic Control and Artificial Intelligence (ACAI 2012), Xiamen, China, 3–5 March 2012; pp. 2231–2234.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.