flight test of a retrofit reconfigurable control law on an f/a-18c aerospace control & guidance...
TRANSCRIPT
Flight Test of a RetrofitReconfigurable Control Law on an F/A-18C
Aerospace Control & Guidance Systems
Committee Meeting No. 98
Williamsburg, VA
11-13 OCT 2006
Tony Page
Naval Air Systems Command301-342-8566
2Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Israeli F-15 After Midair with A-4
3Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
DHL A300 Hit by MANPADS
4Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
F-16 Leading Edge Flap Failure
5Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Flight Control Reconfiguration
Redistribute control commands to compensate for battle damage or actuator failure
During a pitch maneuver for example, the ailerons and rudders can be deflected to counteract the roll and yaw coupling induced by the damaged/failed stabilator.
6Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Status of Existing ResearchStatus of the Field: variety of techniques and several demonstrations have shown promise of software reconfiguration to handle a large number of otherwise catastrophic upset and damage conditions Multiple significant flight demonstrations in the
past 10-15 years(Self-Repairing FCS, PCA, RESTORE)
VISTA F-16 flight tests (Self-Designing Controller, 1996) SDC Milestone:
first time aircraft landed under reconfigurable control
However: significant gap between the research and use of the technology … Many methods cannot be applied
to current generation or legacy aircraft
Hardware redundancy is common approach to fault tolerant design
V&V steps have received less attention
Federal certification authorities lack the resources to evaluate and certify novel technology
Recent and Ongoing Research …
Address the issues with designs that can be retrofitted into existing aircraft
7Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Retrofit Reconfiguration Architectures
ProductionControl Law
Sensor Data
Pilot Input
u
IN-LINE ARCHITECTUREmodify inputs to production Controller
ProductionControl Law
In-line RetrofitControl Module
Sensor Data
Pilot Input
Sensor Data
* u
PARALLEL ARCHITECTUREmodify outputs of production Controlleru*
Parallel RetrofitControl Module Sensor Data
8Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Comparison of Retrofit Architectures
Both Architectures Designed to be Non-Interfering
• Nonzero inputs only result when performance differs from baseline
Advantages of Parallel Implementation• Control of individual actuators provides more
opportunities to reconfigure the aircraft
Advantages of In-Line Implementation• Command limiting, structural filters, etc.
remain in effect• Safety features of existing CLAW need not
be duplicated or abandoned• Architecture is similar to autopilot
If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it!
More Powerful
Should be easier to certify.Lessened V&V Requirements
(if being added to an existing system)
9Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Retrofit Control Law Diagram
Ffq
Ref. Model (Commanded
Response)
Receding Horizon Control
Fcmd
Fpl
f
SystemModel
1/s
1
AW
Model Inputs (states, controls, airdata, etc.)
Commands
States
Co
ntr
ol
Fi
2
1
3
Design Concept: Adaptively computed gains are applied to feedforward, feedback, and integral error states to yield control variables (which are increments to pilot commands that recover, to the extent possible, nominal flying qualities)
10Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Major ComponentsReference Model (Prescribed Offline)
• Low order equivalent system transfer functions from pilot stick to aircraft responses (i.e. pitch stick to pitch rate, roll stick to roll rate, etc.)
Parameter ID System Model (Adapted Online) • State Space model with time varying parameters• Modified Sequential Least Squares algorithm – a regularized
parameter estimation method to determine system model terms
Model-Based Adaptive Control (Solved Online) • Online control design procedure that operates on
the system and reference models to generate controlcommands that cause aircraft dynamics to trackreference models.
• Continuous-time formulation of receding horizoncontrol for a state-space system model
1
2
3
How you want theA/C to respond
How the A/C isactually responding
How to make theA/C respond morelike what you want
11Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Retrofit Control Law Testing
Batch simulation
Tens of thousands of NRTCASTLE simulation cases
Pilot-in-the-loop
Successful software only pilot-in-the-loop simulationtesting with Boeing andNavy Pilots
Hardware-in-the-loop
Extensive pilot-in-the-loop verificationof retrofit control running real-timein the flight hardware
Flight Testing
Successfully completed four flights
Mach Number
0 0.1 0.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Class BEnvelope 400
300
200100
250 KCASProcedural Limit
Altitude(kft)
DynamicPressure (psf)
NRT Test PointPiloted Soft. Only Sim. Test Point
HILS & Flight Test Points
12Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Flight Hardware
FSFCC
• Fleet Support Flight Control Computer (FSFCC)(formerly the Production Support FCC (PSFCC))
• Standard F/A-18A-D FCC modified to include an additional processor card in each channel
• During flight, control of the aircraft can be passed from the baseline (701E) processors to the research (1750A) processors in order to perform an experiment
• Control is passed back to the standard flight control system in the event that any of the multiple safety monitors are tripped (or manually via paddle switch)
13Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
• Simplified scheduling of control law parameters
• Reduced update rates for PID and on-line control design
– Parameter Identification updated at 5 Hz
– Control gains integrated at 10 Hz
• Removed rudder pedals from on-line control design
– Software piloted sim showed substantial benefits of stick-only design
– Hardware-in-the-loop sim indicated some yaw deficiencies
– Separate fixed-gain PI rudder control loop added as an optional capability
Hardware Implementation
Due to computational limitations of the flight hardware, several compromises were required for real-time implementation
Due to computational limitations of the flight hardware, several compromises were required for real-time implementation
14Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Implementation of Retrofit ControllerF/A-18 Fleet Support Flight Control Computer
ControlLaws
(V10.1)
InputSignalMgmt
Output Signal Select & Fader Logic
ActuatorSignal Mgmt
Baseline F/A-18 Central Processing Unit (701E)
Surface Actuator Analog Interface
Built-In Test, Executive, and Data Management
Military Spec1553 Inputs
AnalogInputs
Executive
PACE 1750A Research Processor
Dual-Port Random Access Memory (DPRAM)
RetrofitCLAW
FailureSim
pilot uactpilot Streamlined
Copy ofF/A-18 CAS
15Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
HILS and Flight Test Plan
• Conduct flight test maneuvers and evaluate handling qualities for the following scenarios:
– Retrofit control inactive, no failures(provides nominal performance baseline)
– Retrofit control active, no failures(demonstrates non-interference)
– Retrofit control inactive, with failures(provides degraded performance baseline)
– Retrofit control active, with failures(demonstrates benefit of reconfiguration)
• Failures under consideration
– Right aileron stuck at 0°, 15°, or 30° offset from trim
– Right stabilator stuck at 0°, 3°, or 6° offset from trim
16Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
HILS and Flight Test Plan (cont’d)
• Flight test maneuvers
– Stick doublets
– Pitch and bank angle captures
– Target tracking (with chase as target)
• Aircraft configuration
– F/A-18C
– Clean with centerline tank
– UA and PA
0 2 4 6 8 10-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Time (sec)
stick / max(stick)
q / max (q)
17Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
HILS Results: 30° Aileron Failure (UA)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings
Retrofit – Smooth Mnvr. / Coarse Tracking
Retrofit – Aggressive Mnvr. / Fine TrackingLegend
Pitch Attitude Capture
V10.1 CAS – Smooth Mnvr. / Coarse Tracking
V10.1 CAS – Aggressive Mnvr. / Fine Tracking
Target Tracking HQR = 2.0
Bank-to-Bank RollsHQR = 1.0
HQR = 1.5
Average HQR = 1.5
18Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Flight Test: 30° Aileron Failure (Baseline)
19Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Flight Test: 30° Aileron Failure (Retrofit)
20Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Flight Results: 30° Aileron Failure (UA)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings
Pitch AttitudeCapture
Bank-to-BankRolls
Retrofit – Smooth Mnvr. / Coarse Tracking
Retrofit – Aggressive Mnvr. / Fine Tracking
V10.1 CAS – Smooth Mnvr. / Coarse Tracking
V10.1 CAS – Aggressive Mnvr. / Fine TrackingLegend
Guns Tracking*(Level Turn)
Guns Tracking*(Maneuvering)
HQR = 2.0
HQR = 1.0
HQR = 1.0
HQR = 2.5
Average HQR = 1.6
21Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Example Time Responses (15-deg aileron)
Pitc
hS
tick
Pitc
h R
ate
Rol
lS
tick
Rol
l Rat
e
Time TimeRollCoupling
Pitc
hS
tick
Pitc
h R
ate
Rol
lS
tick
Rol
l Rat
e
Time TimeRollCoupling
Baseline Control (v10.1)
Model ReferenceMeasured
Model ReferenceMeasured
Pitc
hS
tick
Pitc
h R
ate
Rol
lS
tick
Rol
l Rat
e
Time Time
RollCoupling
Model ReferenceMeasuredModel ReferenceMeasured
Model ReferenceMeasuredModel ReferenceMeasured
Pitc
hS
tick
Pitc
h R
ate
Rol
lS
tick
Rol
l Rat
e
Time Time
RollCoupling
RetrofitEngaged
22Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Flight Test HQR
Histograms
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
10
20
30
40
50
60Pitch Capture (Smooth)Pitch Capture (Aggressive)Bank-to-Bank (Smooth)Bank-to-Bank (Aggressive)Target Tracking, Level (Coarse)Target Tracking, Level (Fine)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Coarse)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Fine)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
10
20
30
40
50
60Pitch Capture (Smooth)Pitch Capture (Aggressive)Bank-to-Bank (Smooth)Bank-to-Bank (Aggressive)Target Tracking, Level (Coarse)Target Tracking, Level (Fine)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Coarse)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Fine)
Baseline Control (v10.1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
10
20
30
40
50
60Pitch Capture (Smooth)Pitch Capture (Aggressive)Bank-to-Bank (Smooth)Bank-to-Bank (Aggressive)Target Tracking, Level (Coarse)Target Tracking, Level (Fine)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Coarse)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Fine)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
10
20
30
40
50
60Pitch Capture (Smooth)Pitch Capture (Aggressive)Bank-to-Bank (Smooth)Bank-to-Bank (Aggressive)Target Tracking, Level (Coarse)Target Tracking, Level (Fine)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Coarse)Target Tracking, Maneuver (Fine)
RetrofitEngaged
23Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Summary
• Flight test results show a clear improvement in post-failure handling qualities for the retrofit system
• Mean HQR improved by 0.5 with retrofit engaged
– Robustness of F/A-18 platform and the test restrictions left little room for the retrofit system to improve upon baseline
– Larger difference for moderately aggressive maneuvers with most severe failure cases (freq. saw 1-2 pt. improvement)
• Only four cases (5%) for which retrofit system rated worse than baseline control – each is explainable
– Optional rudder pedal modification
– Simplified scheduling of parameters
24Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Summary (continued)
• In-line retrofit design is inherently limited authority
• Yaw coupling was most prevalent detractor for the prototype retrofit implementation
• More work required for a production retrofit system
– Full envelope design
– Command limiting and envelope protection
– Human factors considerations
• V&V and certification issues still need to be addressed
• Future work…Barron Associates and NASA?
25Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Questions?
26Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Back-up Slides
27Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
• The Navy has been investing in reconfigurable control technology as part of the Flight Control Predictive Diagnostic project (ONR funded D&I program)
• NAVAIR leveraged several SBIRs to expand research
• One SBIR company developed a novel in-line retrofit reconfig. approach
• Original plan was to flight test the method under the Phase II SBIR with support from NASA
• When NASA support evaporated, decision was made to pursue flight test using D&I funds (Technology Push)
• Limited flight test demonstration (4 flights)
Background
28Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
NAVAIR Program Background• The Navy has been investing in reconfigurable control technology as part
of the Flight Control Predictive Diagnostic (FCPD) project
• FCPD Objective: To develop & demonstrate damage & failure diagnostics/prognostics approaches for reconfigurable control, condition-based maintenance, and improved situational awareness
Flight ControlReconfiguration
Faults, Health Observable at A/C System Level
Pilot or Autonomous System Action:• Reconfiguration Compensates for Damage and Failures
Health, Faults,Anomaly
Aircraft LevelDamage ID
Health StatusFusion
ComponentStatus
Maintenance Support: • Prognostics
System andComponent Health
Component Health
Inform of remaining capabilityFaults, Health Observable at Component Level
Ability to perform in-flight tests without disrupting flight
29Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
• Completed extensive simulation testing using the Navy’s high-fidelity simulation environment (CASTLE)– Wide range of failures and damage– Turbulence– Sensor Noise– Different Aircraft Configurations
• 75% of cases rated as good or excellent with regard to ability to restore nominal flying qualities
• 85% of cases rated as fair or better
• Majority of remaining cases did not have sufficient control power to achieve fair or better due to physical limitations
Batch Simulation Results
30Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Piloted Simulation Results
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excellent Fair: Some Mildly Unpleasant Deficiencies
Moderately Objectionable Deficiencies
MajorDeficiencies
Loss of Control During Some Operations
Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Ratings
Nominal F/A-18
Pilot A Pilot B
F/A-18 with Retrofit (for failure cases)
Pilot A Pilot B
F/A-18 with Production CAS (for failure cases)
Pilot A Pilot B
Piloted Simulation Scope• Navy and Boeing pilots
• Three flight conditions1: (0.7M, 20kft) 2: (0.9M, 30kft) 3: (0.6M, 30 kft)
• Failures to primary aerodynamic control surfaces(stab., aileron, rudder)
Bars comprise 12 to 15 HQR assessments of refueling, target tracking, bank / heading / pitch capture, etc.
31Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Pilot Comments and Observations(Software Simulation)
• Pilot Tracking Task (Mach 0.60, 30 kft), Left Stabilator 6 deg. Down
• Close agreement between commanded & achieved pitch and roll
• Data confirms pilot’s observation that
“Improvement was eliminating the strong right roll-off and the roll coupling with pitch. A yaw left with pitch up, yaw right with pitch down was introduced.”
• Inflight Refueling Task (Mach 0.70, 20 kft), Left Aileron 20 deg. Down
• Close agreement between commanded & achieved pitch and roll
• Uncommanded yaw significantly less for this flight condition and task
• Data supports pilot assessment of system for this case
“The elimination of the constant left stick input and the roll coupling were a sure improvement. It was hard to see a degradation in tanking resulting from any yaw coupling that may have been present. Difficult, but roughly equivalent to the baseline airplane.”
32Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
FSFCC Hardware is Flight Proven
• Developed jointly by NAVAIR and NASA
• Derivative of NASA HARV configuration
• Compatible with any F/A-18A-D– Requires flight test jumpers installed on MCs
– Requires DAF
• Originally Flight tested at NASA Dryden and at Patuxent River in 1998 (FSFCC V1.1 Software)– 3 flights at NASA Dryden
– 11 flights at Patuxent River
– All test objectives met
33Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Pilot Interface
LEF
TEF
AIL
RUDSTAB
NIGHT
OFF
AUTO
DAY
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
BRT CONT
MENU MNVRFCS
G
BLIN
MODE
OAV
1
2
3
4
5
PRY
STICKPEDAL
AOABADSA
PROCDEGD
1 2 3 4
CAS
LEF
TEF
AIL
RUDSTAB
NIGHT
OFF
AUTO
DAY
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
BRT CONT
MENU MNVRFCS
G
BLIN
MODE
OAV
1
2
3
4
5
PRY
STICKPEDAL
AOABADSA
PROCDEGD
1 2 3 4
CAS
LEF
TEF
AIL
RUDSTAB
NIGHT
OFF
AUTO
DAY
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
BRT CONT
MENU MNVRFCS
G
BLIN
MODE
OAV
1
2
3
4
5
PRY
STICKPEDAL
AOABADSA
PROCDEGD
1 2 3 4
CAS
LEF
TEF
AIL
RUDSTAB
NIGHT
OFF
AUTO
DAY
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
SV1SV2
BRT CONT
MENU MNVRFCS
G
BLIN
MODE
OAV
1
2
3
4
5
PRY
STICKPEDAL
AOABADSA
PROCDEGD
1 2 3 4
CAS
DDI [A] to completesequence and arm FSFCC
DDI [B], [C], [D] combinations to define test
NWS button to engage FSFCC
ADS paddle to disengage FSFCC
1 2
3 4For Example
DCCBBB = Table 22 Row 0(Fail R Stab to 0)
CCBCB = Table 4 Row 3(Nz Upper Limit Table Entry 1)
34Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
701E Safety Monitoring
Criteria Name Description
AOA/Air Data Fail Air Data Fail or AOA Fail w/ NO WOW
Disengage Request Selected ADS Switch
RFCS Data Not Ready Set when RFCS Data Ready Test Fails
RFCS Command not Valid Set when RFCS Command Min/Max Level Exceeded
RFCS NoGo Indication Signal read from local dual port and set by 1750A. 1750A-defined logic sets no go status
Actuator Failure Any 1 of 36 Failures
Dual Discrete Any 1 of the 15 Dual Discrete Failures
Quad Discrete Failure Any 1 of the 28 Quad Discrete Failures
Quad Sensor Failure Any 2 for DISENGAGE Failures
1750A Processor Failures 1750A Watch Dog Monitor, 1750A Watch Dog Monitor Fail on Power Up,1750A CPU Fail, 1750A PBIT PROM pair Checksum Fail, 1750A PBIT Register Fail Flag, Cross Channel Data Test Fail
Dual Port Ram Invalid Dual Port RAM Ready Fail Flag, Dual Port RAM Fail Flag, or Integrator Seed Out of Limits
MUX Bus Invalid MUX Bus Valid Flag Word
DEL/AUTOPILOT/MECH Modes in which you cannot stay Engaged: Pitch DEL, Roll DEL, Yaw DEL, Mechanical Backup - BIT, IBIT
Master Caution LEF Hydraulic Motor Fail, Flaps OFF Caution, Rudder OFF Caution, Aileron OFF Caution, Stabilator OFF Caution, DEL ON Caution
Channel OFF Local X, Y, or Z OFF
Automatic Disengage Criteria
35Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
1750A Safety Monitoring
• Checks health and status of miscellaneous parameters
– For example: Spin, Spin switch, heading hold
• Envelope limits
– Monitors p, q, r, Nz, Altitude, Airspeed, etc.
– Parameters must be within predefined limits in order to engage the research processor
– Research processor will automatically disengage if necessary
– Limits are contained in a lookup table
– Pilot selects table entry through DDI inputs
36Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Major ComponentsReference Model (Prescribed Offline)
A model that encodes the desired aircraft responsesto pilot inputs as a function of operating condition, etc.
• Low order equivalent system transfer functions from pilot stick to aircraft responses (i.e. pitch stick to pitch rate, roll stick to roll rate, etc.)
• Model parameters computed from high-fidelity simulation data of nominal (unimpaired) aircraft
• Model parameters at a given operating condition are functions of input magnitude (see figure)
• Reference model integrated online (80 Hz update in the 1750A FSFCC)
Parameter ID System Model (Adapted Online) A model that encodes the dynamical responses of the aircraft as it maneuvers through the flight envelope.
• State Space model with time varying parameters
• Modified Sequential Least Squares algorithm – a regularized parameter estimation method to determine system model terms
• MSLS update of system model done online (5 Hz update in the 1750A FSFCC)
1
2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Roll Stick (in)
K (
1/in
-se
c)
Powered Approach
Transonic Cruise
Supercruise
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Roll Stick (in)
K (
1/in
-se
c)
Powered Approach
Transonic Cruise
Supercruise
Example: Transfer Function Gain, Roll Axis Ref. Model
37Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Major Components (cont’d)
Model-Based Adaptive Control (Solved Online) Online control design procedure that operates on the system and reference models to generate control commands that cause aircraft dynamics to track reference models.
• Continuous-time formulation of receding horizon control for a state-space system model
• “Optimal” solution via differential Riccati equations replaced with approximate solution to integrate control law gains directly
– 30 percent less memory, 25 percent faster computation
– Closed loop simulation performance comparable for set of test cases considered
• Control gain differential equations solved online (10 Hz update in 1750A FSFCC)
• Most recent control gains applied at basic frame rate (80 Hz in 1750A FSFCC)
3
38Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Control Law Cost Function
RHO is a solution to the finite horizon optimization problem that minimizes
dtuQuxQxyyQyyFdtJff t
tt
uT
IITIrT
Tr
t
tt
00
21
21
21 )()(
nnTQ
nniQ
mmuQ
symmetric positive semidefinite weighting matrix that assigns importance to predicted tracking error
symmetric positive semidefinite weighting matrix that assigns importance to integrated tracking error
symmetric positive definite weighting matrix that penalizes control effort
39Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Open Literature Publications
Barron Associates, Inc.
Ward, D., and Monaco, J., "System Identification for Retrofit Reconfigurable Control of an F/A-18 Aircraft," pp. 63-72, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2005
Monaco, J., Ward, D., and Bateman, A., "A Retrofit Architecture for Model-Based Adaptive Flight Control," AIAA Paper No. 2004-6281, in Proc.of AIAA Intelligent Systems Conference, Sep. 2004.
NAVAIR
Page, A., Meloney, D., and Monaco, J., “Flight Testing of a Retrofit Reconfigurable Control Law Architecture Using an F/A-18C,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Aug. 2006
Meloney, D., Page, T., and Doyle, M., “Research Flight Test of a Retrofit Reconfigurable Flight Control System,” 37th Annual International SFTE Symposium, Sep. 2006.
40Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Pilots “E” and “F” CAS-Only HQRs – Pitch Attitude Captures
Pilots “E” and “F” Retrofit HQRs – Pitch Attitude Captures
Pilots “E” and “F” CAS-Only HQRs – Bank Angle Captures
Pilots “E” and “F” Retrofit HQRs – Bank Angle Captures
41Approved for Public Release, 265SPR-123.06
Pilots “E” and “F” CAS-Only HQRs – Level Target Tracking
Pilots “E” and “F” Retrofit HQRs – Level Target Tracking
Pilots “E” and “F” CAS-Only HQRs – Maneuvering Target Tracking
Pilots “E” and “F” Retrofit HQRs – Maneuvering Target Tracking