THE EVOLUTION OF FLIGHT

CONTROL SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND OPERATION

Haider Al-Lami, Ameer Aslam, Tanya Quigley, Jack Lewis, Richard Mercer and Prashant
Shukla

University of the West of England, Bristol

28th Feb 2015

Abstract
Aircraft control systems have evolved exponentially within the last 100 years. The first generation of
aircrafts held the pioneering technologies that initiated the pace towards control systems that are
now characterized by increasing sophistication and ingenuity. The new demands for speed,
especially during the cold war era following achieving the dream of breaking the sound barrier, have
placed a considerable pressure on aircraft designers to come up with more robust and better
responsive aircraft flight control methods. Although the basic principle of pulleys and rods to control
flight surfaces survived throughout the second generation of aircrafts in World War II as well as
continuing with some of the third generation of aircraft, the disadvantage of inefficient system
weight marked its end, by the fourth generation, with the development of fly-by-wire systems.
Hydro-mechanical actuation was incorporated in the second and third generation of aircraft,
although this also was later replaced in the fourth generation by electrical hydro-mechanical control.
Following the fly-by-wire age that dominated the aerospace industry for the last thirty years, the
current fifth generation of aircraft are moving more towards fibre controlled optical systems with
more pure electrical actuation, replacing the heavier copper of the previous system as well as
reducing the harm of hydro fluids to the environment whilst also reducing the total weight of the
aircraft. The purpose of this report is to review the journey of aircraft control systems as they have
evolved through these generations. The report will also take a closer look towards the future of
flight control surfaces examining the most recent research papers which anticipate a future aircraft
achieving comparable if not improved efficiency but with no flight surfaces.
Contents

1.0 Introduction: ..................................................................................................................................... 0

1.1 Scope: ............................................................................................................................................ 0
1.2 Literature Review: ............................................................................................................................. 0
2.0 First Generation Control Systems (1903-1945) ................................................................................ 2
2.1 Development throughout the First Generation:........................................................................... 2
2.2 System Architecture:..................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 System Operation: ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.4 Case Study Wright Brothers Plane: ........................................................................................... 4
2.5 System Critical Review: ................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Second Generation Flight Control Systems (1945 1960)............................................................... 5
3.1 Development throughout the Second Generation: ...................................................................... 5
3.2 System Architecture:..................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 System Operation: ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.4 Case Study - OKB-1 - 150 High-Speed Bomber: ............................................................................ 6
3.5 System Critical Review: ................................................................................................................. 7
4.0 Third Generation Flight Control Systems (1960-1970) ..................................................................... 7
4.1 Development throughout the Third Generation: ......................................................................... 7
4.2 System Architecture:..................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 System Operation: ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.4 Case Study - McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom ............................................................................. 9
4.5 System Critical Review .................................................................................................................. 9
5.0 Fourth Generation Flight Control Systems (1970-1994) ................................................................... 9
5.1 Development throughout the Fourth Generation: ..................................................................... 10
5.2 System Architecture:................................................................................................................... 10
5.3 System Operation ....................................................................................................................... 10
5.4 Case Study- Concorde ................................................................................................................. 11
5.5 System Critical Review: ............................................................................................................... 11
6.0 Fifth Generation Flight Control Systems (1994 - 2050) .................................................................. 11
6.1 Development through the Fifth Generation: .............................................................................. 12
6.2 System Operation: ...................................................................................................................... 12
6.3 System Architecture:................................................................................................................... 12
6.4 Case Study - Gulfstream GV: ....................................................................................................... 12
 6.5 System Critical Review: ............................................................................................................... 13
7.0 Future of Flight Control Systems: ................................................................................................... 13
7.1 System Architecture .................................................................................................................... 14
7.2 System Operation ....................................................................................................................... 14
7.3 Case Study Plasma Research: ................................................................................................... 14
7.4 System Critical Review: ............................................................................................................... 15
8.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 15
8.1 Result .............................................................................................................................................. 16
8.2 Recommendation............................................................................................................................ 16
8.3 Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... 16
9.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Table of figures
FIGURE 1: CONTROL SURFACES [27] ....................................................................................................................... 0
FIGURE 2: FLIGHT AXES [1] ..................................................................................................................................... 0
FIGURE 3 : AVRO LANCASTER BOMBER IN FLIGHT [54] ......................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 4: WRIGHT BROTHERS' AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT [53] ...................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 5: WING-WRAPPING CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE KITE [29] ...................................................................... 5
FIGURE 6: WING-WRAPPING CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE WRIGHT FLYER [28] ..................................................... 5
FIGURE 7 : BOEING 707 IN FLIGHT [58] .................................................................................................................. 5
FIGURE 8: DIAGRAM OF AN EARLY STAGE HYDRO-MECHANICAL FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM [32] ........................ 6
FIGURE 9 : MCDONNELL DOUGLAS F-4 PHANTOM IN FLIGHT[55] ......................................................................... 9
FIGURE 10: F4 PHANTOM FLIGHT CONTROL STABILATOR SYSTEM [13] ................................................................ 9
FIGURE 11 : THE PRINCIPLE OF AN IRREVERSIBLE HYDRAULIC ACTUATING CYLINDER [12]................................... 9
FIGURE 12: FLY-BY-WIRE ARCHITECTURE OVERVIEW [38] ................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 13: DESIGN OF FLY-BY-WIRE AND ITS COMPONENT [39] ........................................................................ 10
FIGURE 14: CONCORDE TAKING-OFF [56] ............................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 15: FLY-BY-WIRE BLOCK DIAGRAM [42] ................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 16 : GULFSTREAM GV IN FLIGHT [57] ...................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 17: FLY-BY-LIGHT SYSTEM BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM [44] ......................................................................... 12
FIGURE 18: SCHEMATIC OF PLASMA ACTUATOR SYSTEM [18] ............................................................................ 14
FIGURE 19: PLASMA ACTUATORS APPLICATION FOR ROLL CONTROL [21] .......................................................... 14

1
1.0 Introduction:
The flying and handling qualities of an aircraft
are dependent on and determined by its
stability and control characteristics. This
makes it essential to fully understand aircraft
stability and control parameters [1]. The
stability of an aircraft can be defined as the
ability to return to an original state of
equilibrium, after disturbance without any
effort required from the pilot [1]. Control
means the ability to manoeuvre the aircraft
into any desired position. Flight control
systems are the basic methods that use
different mechanisms to control an aircraft
during performing various activities such as
rolling, banking and yawing The axes of flight
are controlled by three different types of
control surfaces - mainly ailerons, elevators
and rudder. Each control surface has the
responsibility of manoeuvring the aircraft
within one of the axes: longitudinal (roll),
lateral (pitch) and normal (yaw) as shown in
Figure 1. Ailerons are horizontal moving
surfaces located at the trailing edge of the
aerofoil near the wing tips that provide
control in the longitudinal axis. These are
horizontal moving surfaces located at the
trailing edge of the aerofoil near the wing tips.
The elevator is a horizontal moving surface
located at the trailing edge of the tail plane
that provides control in the lateral axis. The
rudder is a vertical moving surface hinged to
the vertical stabiliser [1] that provides control
in the normal axis as seen in figure 2.
Together these surfaces provide control of the
entire aircraft by manipulating lift and drag in
different directions to give the desired effect.
Figure 2: Flight axes [1]
Figure 1: Control surfaces [27]
The vital role played by flight control systems
in improving flying performance through
better stability and control makes it important
to review the evolution of flight control
systems and their operation throughout the
generations of evolving aircraft. However
there has been no real classification of the
development of flight control systems
throughout the ages, since the Wright
Brothers first flight. This study aims to
improve the readers understanding as to how
aircraft performance has been improved
through the evolution of flight control
systems, which the authors have classified in
five distinct stages. The aim of this analysis is
to explain the developments in flight control
systems both by examining previous trends
and studying the advancements made.
1.1 Scope:
This report will discuss the evolution of flight
control system technologies throughout the
five various generations, focusing on:
System development
System architecture
Operation
Critical reviews
However, this paper will not discuss the basic
physics or a detailed mathematical model of
the systems.
1.2 Literature Review:
The Birth of Flight Control by D. G. Padfeild,
2003 [2] describes the development of the
three axis control system together with the
wind tunnel test results that the brothers
gathered to develop the systems which were
used in their aircraft. The Military Factory
Timeline [3] sets out all the military aircraft
that have been designed in date order. This
source summarises the aircraft making it
possible to clearly see the design changes
through time and making it possible to attain
an initial understanding of how the aircraft
developed. The Breakthrough Concept
written by the staff at the Smithsonian
museum [4] was the initial website found
which described the roll control system used
on the Wright flyer. It also detailed the
thought process of how the brothers came up
with the idea of the wing-wrapping system.
This notion was the basic development of the
ailerons concept for aircraft. The dimensions
of the Wright Flyer were found on the
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum
[5]; its focus on the aircraft specifications
made it less relevant to the report.
Gordon, Y (2004) [6] illustrates the
development of how the 150 high speed
bomber was designed and progressed
through the Second World War. However,
this aircraft did not succeed at the test stage.
The unique hydro-mechanical system gives an
insight into the different ways used in the
second generation to improve flight control
systems. Journals such as Weiland, R (1959)
[7] and Pearsall, E (1945) [8] show
developments that started to introduce more
factors to an aircraft system, for example:
auto pilot systems, although these still used
an analogue system to work hand-in-hand
with the hydro-mechanical system. These
journals introduced the auto-pilot theory,
later used in the fourth generation. Web
pages such as: PilotFriend. (2000) [9]
demonstrate both the development of the
flight control system as well as focusing on
the actual hydro-mechanical system and how
it has advanced throughout time.
The Aircraft Stability & Control written by
Malcolm.J. Azbug & E. Eugine Larabee (2002)
[10] gives a historical background with
reference to the standard flight control
1
systems of all aircraft generations. This was
one of the main sources used to understand
the third generation actuation systems. The
IJETAE (2013) International Journal of
Emerging Technology [11] evaluates the
generations of aircraft and details the
evolution of different aircraft control systems
(Although you have incorporated the
information from this journal, the way you
have referred to its use makes the next bit of
the sentence un-necessary. The document
divided the evolution of aircraft systems into
three generations. However, the authors felt
that this classification was not sufficiently
adequate to define each of the important
milestones of development within flight
control systems. Nevertheless, it provided a
clear indication of the progression of the
technology towards Fly-By-Light flight control
systems.
The overview taken from the Sweet-Haven
website [12] gives information for general
actuation systems, as well as explaining in
detail the operation, benefit and purpose of
actuating devices or systems with respect to
third generation aircraft. This was beneficial
in understanding the operation of the various
actuating devices, which was an appropriate
introductory study to the F-4 NAVWEPS,
Natops (1964) [13]. This is a manual for the F-
4 aircraft, which displays a wide variety of
information on the systems used as well as
relating these too primary flight controls. For
this reason the authors extensively analysed it
as well as using it as a comparative case study
with other information obtained.
Schmitt (1998) [14] documented that by the
year 1960, Douglas had designed the concept
of fly-by-wire although it was a further 10
years before this came into operation.
Concorde was the first commercial airliner to
utilise this system, being flown commercially
in 1969 with a combination of both fly-by-
wire and mechanical systems. The historical
account gave an insight into how long a
system can be in development before its
application, due to the rigorous testing and
extensive safety requirements. After the
advancement and improvement of the fly-by-
wire system for 4 years, the first aircraft to fly
with no mechanical back up was the F-16.
SKYbrary (2013) [15] gave a comprehensive
explanation on the development of this
innovation.
As previously mentioned, Fly-By-Light is due
to become the next major flight control
system. A review of fibre optic networks by
M. Pakmehr [16] was the paper that gave the
most comprehensive information of this
technology. This paper looks at Fly-By-Light
technology in depth in different applications
before going on to talk about its application in
aircraft. This report was valuable as it
contained not only all of the data and graphs
but also concise and relevant summaries. For
example, the paper gives details on how
optical fibre sensors have the capability of
providing new and effective measurement in
many applications owing to its inherently
useful properties
Although there has been much discussion
around the use of Fly-By-Light technology in
aircraft, as yet there are currently no
commercial aircraft in production using this
technology. Deagel (2008) [17] discusses a
case study of a Fly-By-Light test flight made by
one of Gulfstreams business jets. The article
remarks on the technicalities of the Fly-By-
Light system used, the test flight undertaken
and how successful it was.
A concept that could potentially be
compatible with Fly-By-Light is plasma
actuation. Some gains from such a model
could be: the redundancy of moving parts,
the limited number of components involved
and low power consumption. Ferry (2010)
[18] studied the efficiency of DBD (dialectic
barrier actuator) and estimated the power
required to trim small aircraft in level flight.
Ferry concluded that the current DBD designs
have yet to be able to produce efficient thrust
levels sufficient to implement a control
system on a real aircraft, such as the trim
control. Lazar (2011) [19] investigated three
plasma based flow control methods, including
laser energy, microwaves and electric arc.
Touchard, G. (2008) [20] presented a detailed
review of the designs and the relevant setups
of the different plasma actuators developed
2
in the last twenty years. This particular source
has provided a rich source of possible
applications for plasma actuators.
Wei, Q., Niu, Z., Chen, B., & Huang, X. (2012)
[21] designed and executed an experimental
study on using plasma actuator as a roll
control device. Their paper proposed a bang-
bang control method could be adapted for
such devices. The paper determined that
"using the proposed optimal control method,
even those small plasma-induced roll
moments can satisfactorily fulfil the
manoeuvre tasks and meet flight quality
specifications". Such a conclusion implicitly
disagrees with Ferry (2010), a study that was
conducted 2 years prior to Wei (2012) [21],
clearly showing how technology improves
over time.
2.0 First Generation Control Systems (1903-
1945)
2.1 Development throughout the First
Generation:
The aviation industry started to take off after
the Wright Brothers plane in 1903. [3]. By the
time of the First World War, the configuration
of aircraft had moved to the more common
design of the main wing mounted in the
centre of the aircraft. The design of elevators
and rudder at the tail allowed for improved
stability and control. One of the most popular
planes during the First World War was the
British Avro 504. The main difference in terms
of the Avro 504s control system to the Wright
Flyer is the roll control system. The design had
moved on from twisting the wing tips to the
more commonly known ailerons, allowing the
pilot to have a seat, with a single control stick
and foot pedals similar to modern day fighter
and commercial aircrafts. From here to the
beginning of the Second World War the pulley
system remained unchanged, until the planes
become too big for the pulley systems to have
an adequate effect on the control of the
aircraft. At this point the move to linkages was
made. This allowed more power to be moved
from the pilots control column to the
surfaces on the aerofoils, moving the larger
forces which were acting on the surfaces of
the plane [22]. Planes that used this flight
control system within the Second World War
era were the Junker, DC-2 and the Spitfire.
In 1903 the Wright brothers took the first
powered plane in a flight that lasted for
twelve seconds and flew for 120 feet on Kitty
Hawk beach [23]. The design of the Wright
flyer was a canard biplane with the elevators
located in front of the main wings with the
rudder at the rear. This type of design allowed
all of the lift produced by the aerofoils to be
upwards improving the lift performance,
although this is also reduced the stability of
the aircraft due to the lift being produced in
an upwards direction both in front and behind
the centre of gravity. A more stable aircraft
would have all of its upwards lift being
produced by the main aerofoil and the
elevators generating lift down, but with both
of the lift sources being behind the centre of
gravity. This stability issue was found during
the final gliding tests when the rudder could
not stop prolonged or strong gusts from a
different direction. This was made obvious on
the 3rd September 1901 when Orville had a
serious crash due to the strong coupling
between the longitudinal and lateral motions
creating a serious aircraft yaw. Wilbur wrote
about this problem in a letter to the Society of
Western Engineers quoting It had been
noticed during the day then when a side gust
struck the machine its effect was first partly
counteracted by the vertical tail, but after a
time, when the machine had acquired a lateral
motion, the tail made matters worse instead
of better [2]. To combat the problem and
improve the stability of the Flyer, the brothers
decided to inter-link the vertical tail
movement with the wing-wrapping to give the
craft more coordination through turning, but
also keep the system free to allow for the
pilot to make alterations to the angle of attack
of the rudder as needed [2].
During the First World War the demand for
aircraft to fly faster at greater altitudes and
with better manoeuvrability led to the
designers creating an increase in aircraft being
released into service between: 1914 - 1918. In
1914, at the beginning of the First World War,
the Avro 504 was released into service. It was
3
such an easy plane to fly it remained in service
until 1932, almost 20 years [24]. One of the
many reasons for this aircrafts popularity was
that the pilot was seated in a simple seat that
allowed for the addition of foot controls for
the movement of the rudder, previously not
possible. Using a combined stick for roll and
pitch control gave the pilot a free hand with
which to take photographs of enemy
lines/trenches. As the roll control had evolved
from wing-wrapping to the now well-known
design of ailerons, this also made the plane
easer to control. At the end of the war,
Germany released the Fokker D. VIII which
was a single winged, shoulder mounted plane
using cables and pulleys to control the
systems [25].
In the beginning of the 1940s the Second
World War led to increases in aircraft size as
planes then needed to be capable of flying
further with bigger payloads. An example of
this is the Avro Lancaster Bomber which first
came into service in 1942, becoming the
definitive heavy bomber during the Second
Figure 3 : Avro Lancaster Bomber in Flight [54]
World War [26]. Some other planes that used
linkage systems in the Second World War
were the Supermarine Spitfire, P-36 and the
DC-2 [5].
2.2 System Architecture:
The design of the control system on the
Wright flyer was incredibly simple. The
system used a series of pulleys and levers to
manage the control surfaces to obtain the
desired control effect. Each of the three
control surfaces had their own control input.
To control the pitch motion of the aircraft the
pilot would pull on the stick in their right
hand. To rotate the rudder from left to right
the pilot would move the stick in their left
hand from right to left. To cause the plane to
roll the pilot would have to move their hips in
the Hip Cradle into the turn to control the
wing-wrapping. The Avro 504 used a similar
pulley system linked to a single control stick
which moved forward and back for pitch
control, as well as left and right for roll. The
rudder was controlled by foot pedals.
With all the aircrafts being developed there
had to be a way in which the system could be
made to seem lighter, which is when
aerodynamic balancing was introduced. This
allows for the pilot to input a reduced amount
of force yet still achieve the desired deflection
of the control surface. If an elevator is being
taken into account, the main body of the
surface that is before the moveable hinge
component that would be where the elevator
would lie produces pressure distributions
which counter acts the force of the actual
elevator. This makes the mechanical system
feel lighter and would be more manoeuvrable
when the aircraft is in flight; it also protects
the system within from flutter [27].
2.3 System Operation:
Figure 3 shows the wing-wrapping system in
operation on the Wright Flyer. In this system,
the roll control used a closed loop pulley
system starting at the Hip Cradle. When the
cradle was moved to the left, as in (figure 3),
the tension is reduced on the cable that
moves from the Hip Cradle through the pulley,
up to the top left wing tip. This allows the
pressure around the wing to move the wing
tip up, reducing the lift on the left wing. The
upper and lower wing tips move in unison
through the connection of the struts that join
the two wings of the biplane together. Now
with both of the tips on the left twisted
upwards, a cable joins the two lower tips
together, letting them move in opposite
directions, with the same angle of attack. This
cable runs above and behind the pilot in the
cradle on the left side is in the neutral point.
Just like on the left side, the struts assure that
the two levels of wing have the same variation
in their angle of attack. The final cable in this
closed loop control system is the cable joining
4
the upper right tip to the right side of the Hip
Cradle through a pulley.
2.4 Case Study Wright Brothers Plane:
The case
study chosen
is the
development
of the wing-
Figure 4: Wright Brothers' Aircraft in wrapping
Flight [53] technique
used to roll the Wright flyer. The first design
that the brothers developed was to use gears
and pivoting shafts to change the angle of the
wing, but it was quickly realised that the
system design would have been too heavy to
be viable on such an aircraft [4]. Instead the
brothers developed a system called Wing-
Wrapping. This system was first developed
during the early stages of the kite testing in
1899, when Wilber Wright was twisting a box
in his shop he realised that the box was
remaining rigid whilst he twisted it [4]. A kite
was built to test the system. The kite was
controlled using two control sticks, when the
pilot pulled the control sticks the wing tips of
the kite would angle down, reducing the lift
generated on that side of the kite. And when
the stick was moved in the opposite direction
the wing tips would tilt up producing more lift
and rolling the kite (figure 4).
At the time the only control surfaces available
on an aircraft were the elevators and rudder
which made the control and manoeuvring of
an aircraft very difficult. With the addition of
the roll control more complex manoeuvers,
such as a figure of eight became much easier
to perform [28].

Figure 5: Wing-Wrapping control system for the kite [29]
Figure 6: Wing-wrapping control system for the Wright
Flyer [28]
2.5 System Critical Review:
One positive result of this effect is that the
pilot would get feedback from the control
surface through the cables effectively telling
him if there was a problem with the control
surface as well as how the plane was flying.
With the addition of the roll control the
Wright Flyer could perform much tighter
turns than any other aircraft that the French
were developing at the time. When the
control systems progressed onto linkages, the
pilots inputs could be multiplied to help
move larger control surfaces. On the other
hand, the negatives of the control system on
the Wright Flyer are that movement of the
pulleys would be heavy and therefore
exhausting for the pilot, which commonly
resulted in a crash landing after only a short
flight. Also, to control the Wing-Wrapping
system of pulleys, the pilot needed to move
their entire body, as the roll control input
5
required them to move the Hip Cradle from
side to side.
3.0 Second Generation Flight Control
Systems (1945 1960)
3.1 Development throughout the Second
Generation:
Nearing mid-second World War, hydro
mechanical flight controls were being
introduced into larger aircrafts such as the
Merlin Lancaster bomber. This only had
hydraulics in the main wing, controlling the
flaps during the different stages of flight [30].
After the war was over much more
development could go into the commercial
sector, and hydro-mechanical systems started
to take over. This meant that aircraft size
could increase, with a corresponding increase
in size of the control surface. Such a system
would have to withstand the stress/strains of
larger forces that the pilot might put the
aircraft under. In addition the pilot himself
would have to be strong enough to move the
system to achieve a response with a
corresponding risk of fatigue or compromise
of performance. Clearly the pulley and push
rod systems were insufficient to perform the
tasks that were being asked of them.
Secondly if the system were damaged even
slightly, for example if a wire was not at the
correct tension or a push rod had too much
stress applied to it, this could result in the
aircraft not responding as intended or even
by loss of life.
A hydro-mechanical system was developed to
avoid this, using hydraulic power to assist
Figure 7 : Boeing 707 in Flight [58]
with the system, making it possible to
develop larger aircraft such as the Boeing 707
and 727 [30] [31]. Hydraulics integrated into a
mechanical system allow for larger control
surfaces to be moved, and larger aircrafts to
be both designed and flown. Of course the
pilot still exerts a manual force on the stick, as
with a mechanical system, but the pulleys and
rods are now moved with the assistance of a
hydraulic system.
The hydro-mechanical system works on all
three primary control surfaces, the ailerons,
elevators and rudder. The ailerons and
elevators are controlled by a stick or yoke,
and the rudder by pedals, operated by the
pilots feet.
3.2 System Architecture:
Mechanical control system methods use
mechanical connections such as pulleys,
cables and rods. These mechanical
connections are connected directly to the
control surfaces, so all the inputs are done
manually by the pilot, giving the pilot all the
control of the aircraft. Consequently pilot skill
determines both manoeuvrability and the
way the aircraft is flown. However, after a
period of time it can be very tiring for the
pilot to keep an aircraft at level flight.
Inherent stability was integrated into many of
the aircrafts designed at this time to allow for
an aircraft to return to its original position if a
sudden gust of wind was to hit it.
As the phrase hydromechanical flight control
system suggests, there are both a hydraulic
and mechanical components to the system.
The mechanical system works similarly to the
first generation mechanical flight control
systems, with pulleys, cables and rods, but
with the hydraulic system providing the
power to move the flight control surface.
These two systems work hand-in-hand,
although if one fails there is a significant
difference in outcome depending on which
element fails. For example, if the hydraulic
system was to fail, the aircraft would still be
able to fly as the mechanical system would
stay intact with the control surfaces all of the
time. The pilot would know straight away of
such a failure as the control system would
become very heavy. Alternatively if the
mechanical system was to fail, there would be
little that the hydraulic system could do to
6
control the system, as its sole purpose is to
provide power to move the control surfaces
for the system as a whole. The hydraulic fluid
used within the system is incompressible;
such property enables the movement of the
mechanical linkages. The fluid is stored in
designated reservoirs, which uses pumps to
pressurise and transfer the fluid to the
desired areas.
3.3 System Operation:
The hydro-mechanical system within the
flight control system works as follows: when a
pilot manually inputs a control and moves the
stick or yoke, a manual input is applied to the
system. This moves the cables/rods and thus
engages the hydraulic system as well as the
mechanical part. This opens a control valve,
letting pressure from the hydraulic pump
force the slave cylinder to operate the
cable/rod and thus move the control surface.
Figure 5 shows how the system works for an
aileron/elevator. The rudder is operated by
the same process, but with pedals at the
human interface.
.
Figure 8: Diagram of an early stage hydro-mechanical flight
control system [32]
3.4 Case Study - OKB-1 - 150 High-Speed
Bomber:
The OKB 1, 150 high speed bomber did not
see proper service in the second World War,
but was an aircraft that would use a brand
new design, showing off Germanys latest
achievements in technology and science from
the end of the 40s to the beginning of the
50s. Two main features that were unique to
the 150 where its swept back wings and the
way in which the hydro-mechanical flight
control system worked.
The hydro-mechanical flight control system
was not a regular set up in the way that it was
operated during flight. The pilot still used
manual inputs with the control stick and the
system still had pulleys and cables with a
hydraulic system, but the hydraulics had to be
turned on when they were needed. This
meant that the pilot had to operate the
hydraulics with sticks and pedals, to allow
hydraulic fluid to flow into the motors that
were used for the control surfaces. This
caused the system to become very difficult to
learn, yet alone use. The 150 had a test flight
in 1953. However, when coming into land the
pilot misjudged the landing, leading the
aircraft to stall and crash into the runway.
After the first test flight, the aircraft was not
further developed, but used as a flying
laboratory [33] [6].
3.5 System Critical Review:
Adding a hydraulic system increases the
weight of the existing mechanical system to
the weight of the aircraft itself, causing a
decrease of both efficiency and performance
during flight. Furthermore, a hydraulic system
is difficult to maintain as the hydraulic fluid
has to be replaced at frequent intervals a
time consuming process that negatively
affects an aircrafts turnaround period. Even
though the mechanical system is complicated
with all the pulleys, cables and rods imbedded
into its system, adding a hydraulic system on
top of that just makes things more complex,
by adding in more wires and hydraulic pipes
to carry the fluid to the right components
[34].
Such disadvantages are offset by the
advantages hydro-mechanical systems have
over the simpler mechanical systems. The size
of the aircraft being flown had increased
rapidly, with higher speeds being achieved
during flight. There was less pilots fatigue,
due to the assistance provided by the system
making longer journeys possible. Even if the
hydraulic system failed the aircraft could still
be flown by operation of the mechanical
system, effectively providing a redundancy
advantage over the first generation, purely
mechanical systems. One problem that
7
mechanical systems face when on land, was
damage from gusts of wind. In contrast, a
hydro-mechanical system is naturally rigid as
well as aerodynamically balanced making it
better able to withstand a gust of wind when
on land [35].
4.0 Third Generation Flight Control Systems
(1960-1970)
4.1 Development throughout the Third
Generation:
As already discussed, the hydro-mechanical
systems were endorsed and incorporated into
second generation aircraft. After the war had
passed, development was focussed towards
more advanced systems. During this period as
hydro-mechanical systems were improved,
military aircraft were also designed to achieve
new innovative techniques for aircraft control
systems, in order to enhance the stability of
aircraft at a variety of altitudes.
The third generation aircraft which was
developed from the 1960s and the 70s, used
upgraded hydro-mechanical systems. The
previous generation of aircraft had used
simple hydro-mechanical systems. However,
the engineers designing the third generation
aircraft incorporated systems with hydraulic
powered actuators, with the aim of moving
larger aircraft control surfaces. Inevitably
there came a time when the mechanical
control systems became inadequate. As the
speed and systems of the aircraft increased, it
became much harder for the control systems
to move and fluctuate sufficiently
responsively so hydraulic power was
implemented, creating a hybrid hydro-
mechanical system.
Aircraft in the 60s such as the Boeing 727,
Boeing 737, Lockheed L1011 and the
McDonnell Douglas DC9/10 and Airbus all had
a hydro-mechanical actuation system,
although the Boeing 747 was the first aircraft,
in the evolution of the Boeing series, to have
a fully powered and functioning actuation
system. [10]
During the period of the advancement of
hydro-mechanical technology in the 70s, a
new component in the system was
introduced. This was irreversible power
control cylinders.
The first irreversible power control cylinder
was used on the Northrop XB-35 and
Northrop YB-49 aircraft. Irreversibility of the
cylinder system was a key necessity for these
aircraft due to the hinge moments being
created on the floating up elevon control
surface, moments caused due to high angles
of attack [10].
4.2 System Architecture:
There are two main parts in a hydro-
mechanical system; the mechanical circuit
(which is very much like the standard
mechanical control system) and the hydraulic
system. In the hydraulic system the pilot
moves hydro-mechanical controls, which in
turn activate the mechanical circuit, actuating
the hydraulic components [36].
The control system consists of cockpit
controls, sensors, actuators, hydraulic,
mechanical and electrical computer systems.
Each system controls various components in
the aircraft, enabling the aircraft to attain
control and stability during flight. Actuators
were newly developed and used in aircraft
after the second generation era. The main
evolving aspect in the third generation was
the reduction of the rod linkage between the
actuator and the control surfaces with
actuators connected directly to the control
surface. [10][36]
4.3 System Operation:
The operation of hydraulic actuation starts
with pressurisation of the fluid via a pump.
The pressure must be converted into a usable
force, achieved with the help of an actuating
unit. An actuating cylinder has the following:
housing/casing, pistons, rods and seals. The
casing has a bore where the piston can
operate, with ports where fluid can enter and
exit. The piston and rod together create a
system which fluctuates back and forth inside
the bore. Seals are placed to prevent any
leakages.
8
There are two main types of hydraulic
actuating cylinders; a single and a double
powered actuating cylinder. The single type
contains a cylinder, one fluid port, piston, rod
assembly, piston return spring and seals.
When the piston has no pressure applied, the
return spring latches on to it and the rod
assembly is retracted, causing fluid to leave
the cylinder. When pressure is applied
through the inlet the piston doesnt allow any
fluid to pass, causing the piston to extend.
Whilst the rod and piston are in the extended
position, the spring is compressed, with a
vent allowing the air to bleed out. [12]
A double actuating cylinder contains a
cylinder casing, with two ports; one at TDC
(Top Dead Centre) and BDC (Bottom Dead
Centre), a rod assembly. Similar to the single
actuating cylinder, as pressure is applied at
the first port the piston is extended, forcing
the fluid to go to the opposite side of the
piston and out of the second port. When the
pressure is applied to the second port it
causes the rod and piston to retract. This
forces the fluid to go to the opposite part of
the cylinder and out through the first port,
thus gives power in both directions via
hydraulic pressure. A valve is normally
incorporated for the control of this type of
cylinder [10].
When force and torque are applied to an
irreversible actuator, the system will give a
feedback signal that gradually cancels the
input until it reaches the desired position. The
term irreversible has been given due to the
aerodynamic hinge moment not having any
effect on their positions. The control valve is
mounted and integrated into the actuation
cylinder. Electrical signals transmitted via the
cockpit or system alter and move the control
valve, away from the centre, thus causing
ports to open with high pressure. It may also
cause a supply of hydraulic fluid as well as low
pressure. The rod of the piston is connected
to the structure, whereas the power cylinder
is connected to the control surface. As the
cylinder moves, responding to an unbalanced
pressure, the control valve also moves with it.
 This causes the valve to be at a central axis,
around the displaced device, thus causing
motion to stop; therefore the control surface
has changed position, due to the input to the
control valve [10][12].
4.4 Case Study
- McDonnell
Douglas F-4
Phantom:
The phantom
has a low
mounted
Figure 9 : McDonnell Douglas F-4
swept back
Phantom in Flight[55]
wing with an
anhedral shape at the tip of the wings. The
stabilator, ailerons and spoilers all use dual,
irreversible power control cylinders, in order
to position the control surfaces. A single,
irreversible hydraulic power control cylinder
positions the rudder. The primary control
systems for the McDonnell Phantom
generation are the stabilators, rudder and
ailerons [13] [36].
Longitudinal control is achieved with the
benefit of a stabilator. The components of the
system are: control stick, push-pull rods,
cables, bellcranks, control valves and power
Figure 11 : the principle of an irreversible hydraulic actuating
cylinder [12]
cylinders. As the control stick is longitudinally
moved, the movement is sent via push-pull
rods to a bell crank. Another set of push-pull
rods are incorporated in the system, where
the movement is transmitted to a second set
of rods (via cable assembly). The second
push-pull rods set, thus causing an actuation
9
of the control valves; this sends hydraulic
fluid to the power cylinder which in turn
applies the hydraulic pressure to the
stabilator. An AFCS servo (automatic flight
control system) is also integrated within the
system. Its placed in the stabilator dual servo
valve. Henceforth, when the autopilot detects
and signals for a pitch change, the control
stick will go with the flow of movement [13].
Figure 10: F4 Phantom flight control stabilator system
[13]
4.5 System Critical Review:
As the older systems only used a mechanical
link for moving a control surface, the third
generation aircraft would all have actuating
devices to move components, thus boosting
their efficiency, and having a better operating
system, as well as preventing jamming of the
cylinder.
The hydraulic irreversible system was also an
advantage for many second and third
generation aircraft due to the hinge moments
being created at high angles of attack
irreversibility was a key benefit to stop these
moments.
However, due to the high forces acting on the
cylinder system, this can cause component or
structural damage. A novel system was
required to overcome this, leading to fly-by-
wire systems. The first, second and third
generation were all examples of mechanical
and hydro-mechanical systems. The fourth
however introduced electrical systems.
5.0 Fourth Generation Flight Control Systems
(1970-1994)
Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system which replaces
 the manual flight control (pulleys, push pull
rods) with electrical wires and computers. The
term fly-by-wire implies a purely electrical,
signal-based control system. The architecture
of fly-by-wire was developed in 1970 [37] as a
reliable and sophisticated system which
improves the handling qualities of the aircraft.
The system is operated in order to move the
control surfaces without using any mechanical
element and was being explicitly used within
the fourth generation era of military
application since it enhanced the multirole
configuration of an aircraft. Primary flight
control surfaces of all fourth generation
aircraft are operated by electro-hydraulic
methods. Unlike the electrical systems, these
do not have the friction and corrosion
problems of earlier generation hydraulic
systems [37].
Figure 12: Fly-by-wire architecture overview [38]
5.1 Development throughout the Fourth
Generation:
The design of a fly-by-wire system is based on
the application and feedback of electrical
technology. In previous generations flight
control was fully dependent on mechanical
and hydro-mechanical systems, which
suffered from mechanical deficiencies and
stability complications. Mirage 2000 is a
modified version of the Mirage (iii) which is
designed by Dassault engineers in the 1970`s.
Both these aircraft had the same aerodynamic
profile, with the important and only
difference being that the mirage (iii) was
fitted with hydro-mechanical controls and the
mirage 2000 was equipped with the fly-by-
wire system. The key advantages of the
mirage 2000, over the earlier Mirage (iii) are:
improved stability, more cost-effective, a
reduction in weight and better agility. This
10
was Dassault`s first aircraft to utilise this
technology.
Larger commercial and fighter aircraft, such as
the Boeing 727, Mig 19, F-4 all had mechanical
and hydro-mechanical systems. The military
aircraft had no ability to switch roles between
air-to-air and air-to-ground in bad weather
conditions due to the weight and instability of
the aircraft. They also did not have the
advantage of a computerised system.
5.2 System Architecture:
The electro-hydraulic control system has both
electrical and hydraulic components and is
popularly known as fly-by-wire method. The
primary flight control surfaces (aileron,
elevator and rudder) employ hydraulic
actuators and control valves that are
themselves controlled and operated by
electrical cables. These cables run the entire
length of an airframe from cockpit to every
control surface. It allows the pilot command
input (signal) to be transmitted by wires
without any distortion and error, thus
improving the systems reliability and
functionality. The actuation of control
surfaces depends upon the operation of the
valve and hydraulic actuator.
Figure 13: design of fly-by-wire and its component [39]
5.3 System Operation
Fly-by-wire uses electrical signals rather than
mechanical inputs to actuate the control
surfaces. The basic operation of the fly-by-
wire system starts with the pilot inputting a
command, which is changed into an analogue
electrical signal that passes through many
electrical cables and channels to ensure that
the signal reaches the flight control
computer. The number of channels used in
the computer (i.e. duplex, triplex, simplex)
and their properties varies between
manufacturers. Triplex is mostly used because
of its high integrity and reliability. It also uses
a self-checking method with the built-in test
equipment (BITE) that is also used in pre-
flight safety checks [40]. The Cyclic
Redundancy Check (CRC) algorithm is used
within the computer to detect errors during
transmission [41]. The signal is then amplified
to operate the actuation system, which in
turn moves the control surface.
Figure 15: fly-by-wire block diagram [42]
After actuating the control surfaces, the
analogue signal is converted into a digital
signal by an ADC (analogue to digital
converter), and finally returned back to the
computer reporting the movement of control
surface. The feedback signal is detected by
the sensor and then transmitted to a
summing point [15] [40] which measures the
error. The error is calculated and identified by
the difference between the current control
surface position and the desired input. There
are some methods which reduce the chances
of error or false command such as parity
check and watch dog timer.
5.4 Case Study- Concorde
The first electrical flight control system in civil
aircraft was installed in Concorde. Today
millions of flying hours have been achieved
using fly-by-wire technology that is now so
reliable there is merely one failure per billion
flying hours. In a conventional aircraft such as
the Airbus A320, the pilot gives instruction
through the side-stick which passes it through
the cable where it is transmitted to the
actuator by the arrangement/configuration of
cables and computers. Functionally an Airbus
A320 uses two computers, one for the
11
Figure 14: Concorde taking-off [56]
elevator, a second for the aileron and spoiler
elevator. Both computers have two channels,
command and monitoring. Each channel
includes processors, associated memories,
input/output circuits, a power supply unit and
specific software and is designed to detect,
and notify the pilot, of any failure.
5.5 System Critical Review:
In terms of weight, safety, maintenance,
durability and performance, the fly-by-wire
system is both more suitable and more
reliable than the mechanical and hydro-
mechanical systems that it replaced. The
reduction of weight and greater ease of
maintenance is achieved by replacing
mechanical components with electrical
interfaces. Previous generations had used
mechanical linkages to control and actuate
the control surfaces whereas this fourth
generation uses the fly-by-wire system,
substantially enhancing aircraft performance.
A reduction in human error is also achieved
using fly-by-wire due to improved handling
quality, making it a more sophisticated system
of control than the mechanical and hydro-
mechanical control systems that it replaced.
The main disadvantage of fly-by-wire is that it
is exposed to high intensity electro-magnetic
radiation that can cause an error or even
system collapse. Avoiding this requires
shielding as well as an incredible amount of
testing, both of which substantially increase
the cost of the system. To the current day,
millions of flying hours have been
accumulated using fly-by-wire systems. They
are so reliable that there is now only one
failure per billion flying hours [40].
6.0 Fifth Generation Flight Control Systems
(1994 - 2050)
Fly-by-wire has seriously dominated the fifth
 generation of aircraft due to its huge computer (figure 11). It is converted back to
improvement on earlier flight control an electrical signal, decoded and processed.
systems. Independently of this, there has Then it is altered back to an optical signal to
been an increase in the use of composites in travel through optic fibres to the actuator
aircraft design, largely driven by the potential where it is once again converted to an
for weight reduction and increased strength electrical signal and applied to the control
over their metal counterparts. The Boeing 787 surface [44]. This process is done as part of a
is made up of around 50% composite material closed feedback loop, similar to the fly-by-
[45]. However this advance comes with a wire systems. The pilots interface and system
major drawback as composites offer no operation process are also the same.
natural protection from High Intensity
Radiated Fields (HIRF) and Electromagnetic
Interference (EMI). The essential installation
6.3 System Architecture:
of adequately tested shielding to protect the
The main difference between fly-by-wire and
flight control systems, adds cost and weight
fly-by-light is the use of optic fibres instead of
to the aircraft, which has led to the
electrical cable and the need for many optic-
consideration of using fibre optic cables
electrical transducers. This system must
instead of electrical cables as these are
include sensors, a fibre optic link, an
inherently resistant to both HIRF and EMI.
interrogator, electronics and
firmware/software which converts voltages to
6.1 Development through the Fifth measurands like temperature, pressure and
Generation: data interpretation as well as decision-making
Fly-by-light uses optic fibres and optical algorithms/software [16].
sensors. The optic fibres are lighter by up to a
6.4 Case Study - Gulfstream GV:
factor of 10 than the electrical cables that
On March 18, 2008 Gulfstream announced
they are replacing [43]. As discussed, the
that they had conducted a successful test
weight is always one of the most important
using fly-by-light technology to operate the
factors to take into account when designing
flight control of their G650 test aircraft. The
an aircraft. The optic fibres have a large
aircraft flew for almost 75 minutes while optic
bandwidth, meaning that they can transmit
fibres were used to successfully transmit pilot
more data per second [16] a crucial factor
input to spoilers on the wings. The system
since as the speed of the aircraft increases,
carries instructions in the optic fibres and
the speed of the control surfaces reactions
performs an optic-electrical conversion at
must also increase. This would appear to
suggest that fly-by-light is the ideal flight
control system for the future. A simplex fibre
optic data link was used on AirForce NC-131H
[43] as early as 1974.

6.2 System Operation:

The pilots command is converted into an
optical signal to travel to the flight control

Figure 16 : Gulfstream GV in Flight [57]

every avionics system end point. The system

combines multiple signals into one common
optical rail that runs the entire length of the
aircraft; using optic fibres means reducing

12
Figure 17: Fly-By-Light system block flow diagram [44]
many bulky bundles of wires into just four
optic fibres. The signal concentrators can
unite thousands of electrical signals onto one
single optical bus.
The fibre optics used on the G650 also
transmitted a redundant signal so that if the
first failed the redundant signal could take
over, giving this fly-by-light system better
integrity and safety. The experiment was a
total success. Pres Henne, Senior Vice
President of Programs, Engineering and Test
at Gulfstream had this to say about it: When
you consider the benefits fly-by-light
technology delivers to its users in terms of
weight and safety, the system Gulfstream
tested was better than expected. Were
pleased with the systems performance and
will continue to research its use in future
applications [17].
6.5 System Critical Review:
Some advantages of this system have been
previously mentioned, particularly the fibre
optics natural immunity to HIRF and EMI.
Other advantages are its much larger
bandwidth (using a 50Mbps fibre optic bus)
giving the capability of transmitting a
redundant signal something that fly-by-wire
could only achieve with an additional wire
bundle. However, there are several more
brilliant advantages to the fly-by-light system.
Since it has electrical passivity the system is a
lot safer in explosive environments. It is also a
highly durable system despite being of
minimal mass. The very small wire diameter
allows integration into smart materials. It has
a broader transmission spectrum so is
capable of transmitting over long distances as
well as in hard to reach areas. It even has the
potential for non-line-of-sight measurements.
On the other hand, extensive testing is
required to validate the practicality and
reliability of the system. Testing is very
expensive, creating major cost penalties
accrued when attempting to prove its
reliability and validating the system for wider
use in all aircraft. Some components, such as
the specialised fibre optic connectors and
passive couplers are still not readily available
13
so are very expensive in comparison to their
electrical counterparts [43]. The components
are fragile. The connectors require a certain
degree of precision to fit. The cables are
brittle, thereby restricting the angle at which
the wire can be bent. These difficulties
seriously increase the time, effort and costs
required to plan and install such a cable
network within an aircraft. This may explain
why, despite the clear advantages, there are
currently no aircraft in production using fly-
by-light flight control. Currently, it is still only
in its test phase. Aileron trim flight tests on a
McDonnell-Douglas 87 have proved the
capability of fibre optics. Also, NASA has
tested it on the F-18 fighter and plans to do
other tests on the Boeing 757 using the same
system [43]. Gulfstream have tested on their
G650 test aircraft [8]. The technology is being
used for high speed optical databus
connections to the main avionics systems in
the Eurofighter Typhoon [46]. The Airbus A-
400M Atlas uses optical technology to
transmit fuel data.
7.0 Future of Flight Control Systems:
As a response to the astonishing changes in
world political and economic structure,
associated with the increase of global
economic stress and social fears, the
aerospace programmes of the major industry
players (USA, Japan, Russia and Europe) are
set to find effective solutions to the excessive
demands. Future goals such as, lower life-
cycle cost, higher cruising speeds (including
hyper sonic) and altitudes, reduction in
weight, material, fabrication, and
maintenance costs all these are likely to
require searching for radical solutions away
from convention [47].
One such potential solution that is attracting
increasing interest from aerospace academia
communities is Plasma Actuators,
commonly referred to as Active Flow
Control. The radical solution of plasma
actuators lies in its capability to accelerate the
airflow over the wing (or over any surface of
application) with no need for moving parts.
One use of such property can be replacing
ailerons by mounting the plasma actuators
over the operational area of the control
surface. Active flow control technologies are
considered to be the most promising
technology of the twenty first century [48].
7.1 System Architecture
The principle system components are easily
identified, making such a system very
attractive for industrial use. The system is
composed of cathode and anode electrodes,
a high voltage AC circuit supplying a current
between these poles and a dielectric material
with insulating properties. One electrode is
exposed to the atmosphere and the other is
embedded under the dielectric cover [18].
Figure 18: schematic of plasma actuator system [18]
7.2 System Operation
To operate the actuator, a high voltage is
needed to run through the electrodes. This
induces the formation of the plasma
discharge between the outer electrode and
the insulator. The electric discharge causes
what is known as ionic wind to blow in a
tangential direction to the insulation material.
The forces generated by the discharge
accelerate the static or the dynamic air over
the actuator towards the surface [48]. The
force per unit volume on the gas molecules is
equal to the momentum transferred per unit
volume and per unit time from charged
particles to neutral molecules [49]:
( )
Where: e = electric charge, E = electric field, k
= Boltzmann constant, & = ion and
electron densities, & = ion and electron
temperatures. Thus, the amount of flow
acceleration is proportional to the amount of
14
the force generated. The above expression
describes the force acting on the neutral
molecules in collisional plasma. Within the
formulation of the equation, three possible
situations can be realised [49]:
1- The force is zero in a perfectly neutral,
uniform plasma, ( , = 0);
that is the force due to ions is exactly
balanced by the force due to electrons.
2- A non-zero force can exist in regions
dominated by a bipolar diffusion, e.g. in a
quasi-neutral, non- uniform plasma.
3- In regions where there is a non-zero space
charge, the force exerted by the charged
particles on the neutral gas is clearly non-
zero.
7.3 Case Study Plasma Research:
The main feature that a Dialectic Barrier
Discharge (DBD) system offers to the industry
is its ability to manipulate flow over the
surface of application. Thus, it has a direct
influence on the aerodynamic properties of
wings if it is incorporated in the wing design.
Accelerating the flow of air over the wing
using plasma actuators improves the aerofoil
pressure profile to achieve a higher lift to
drag ratio giving a higher coefficient of lift.
This enables the system to potentially
produce a lift difference between the two
wings. If the system is adapted to the far end
of the wing (where the ailerons are usually
placed) using the actuator will make the flow
at one end faster than the flow at the other
end [5]. This will produce a lift difference
between the two ends which allows the
aircraft to roll without the need for ailerons.
Figure 19: Plasma actuators application for roll control
[21]

This new technology is in its initial
development stages - DBD actuators have yet
to be able to produce enough thrust to
implement a control system for a commercial
or military application [18]. However, industry
reports show that the technology will initially
be introduced to Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)
programmes and will be deployed in the near
future [50][51] .
Although there are, as yet, no real industrial
or commercial applications for the system to
be used, it has proved its potential to
eventually be integrated into aircraft flight
control [19].
The researchers at AFRL (Air Force Research
Laboratories) are exploring the practicality of
replacing traditional mechanical actuators
with plasma actuators [52], thus laying the
basis to develop revolutionary hypersonic
aerospace vehicles.
7.4 System Critical Review:
Although the system gives the advantage of
minimal physical components, the power
needed to operate the system dictates the
mounting of heavier supply apparatus [21].
However, in comparison with previous
generations, whilst the weight penalties need
to be considered, it is believed this drawback
can be neutralised. Another disadvantage is
that the electromagnetic field around the
electric discharge may have an effect on the
avionics as well as other aircraft digital
systems.
Despite these disadvantages, such a system
does have advantages over previous
generations: [20]: far less maintenance
required, lower cost, directly converts electric
energy into kinetic without involving moving
mechanical parts, short response times as
well as enabling real-time control at high
frequencies.
8.0 Conclusion
The systems used in first generation aircraft
to actuate the elevators, ailerons and rudders
were a system of pulleys which operated via
15
the pilot through the three controls input
method for managing standard pitch, roll and
yaw. The pitch control acted as expected,
even for modern day aircraft, where the
elevator fluctuates to pitch the nose up or
down. The yaw is again similar to planes
today with the use of a symmetrical rudder
behind the plane. The roll mechanism of a
modern aircraft uses a completely different
system to that of the first generation aircraft.
The Wright brothers developed a roll control
system called wing-warping: this control
system still works like an aileron. However,
rather than a small section of the wing
changing the lift, the entire wing twists to
change the distribution of pressure over the
two wings.
As the industry went into the Second World
War, the second era of aircraft evolved from
mechanical flight control to hydro-
mechanical. This development allowed for the
increase of aircraft size to achieve larger
control surfaces. By introducing a hydraulic
system to the mechanical one, longer flights
were made possible as the physical stresses
on the pilot were reduced. Higher speeds
were also achieved, as the aerodynamic
forces are countered with the hydraulic
system.
Moving into the third generation, there were
upgrades to the aircraft design, as the aircraft
speed increased, improved hydro-mechanical
architecture was introduced. While the
previous systems only used mechanical links
for moving control surfaces, these third
generation aircraft used actuating devices to
move components. This proved to be much
more efficient, and operated better. This also
prevents the piston contained within the
cylinder from choking. In general the
actuation unit was a major part of third
generation aircraft, as opposed to simple
mechanic links to move surfaces. Although
fly-by-wire was later introduced this still
maintains the actuation component for
moving control surfaces. This was a great
breakthrough in the advancement of aircraft
technology.
The fly-by-wire system is more sophisticated
than the previous generation of control
systems. IMA (integrated modular avionics)
concept originated in the fourth generation
which changed the entire systems
architecture in subsequent aircraft. Fly-by-
wire technology truly developed the overall
performance of aircraft. The main advantage
of fly-by-wire is the increased flight quality in
relation to stability and control.

Fly-By-Light system is anticipated to be a huge

step forward in the improvement of flight
control systems for fifth generation aircraft. It
will allow the aircraft to be designed larger
and faster without any weight drawback and
the flight control system itself will be lighter.
Concurrently researchers and facilities are
conducting studies on the feasibility of plasma
actuators to replace flight control surfaces.
The technology is expected to play a major
role in the development of hypersonic
aircraft.

8.1 Result
By classifying aircraft control systems into
separate generations, this method of
classification allows a better appreciation of
the benefits of each individual development.

8.2 Recommendation
Further investigation could provide greater
depth of understanding of the avionics aspect
of aircraft systems to later be integrated
within this study. A practical demonstration of
ionic wind could have been used with the
presentation. A further study is recommended
to evaluate the effects of the high-voltage
electrical-discharge within the plasma
actuator on aircraft avionics. This study could
incorporate the compatibility of Fly-By-Wire
and Fly-By-Light systems with the plasma
actuation system.

8.3 Acknowledgement
A special thanks to the course leaders Pritesh
Narayan and Steve Wright for their support
and guidance through this study.

16
9.0 References

[1] AC Kermode. (1996). Stability and Control. In: RH Barnard and DR Philpott. Mechanics of Flight.
10th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.

[2] D. Padfield. (2003). The birth of flight control: An engineering analysis of the Wright brothers'
1902 glider. The Aeronautical Journal. 1 (2854), 697-718.

[3] Staff Writer. (2014). Aircraft Timeline of Flight. Available: http://www.militaryfactory.com/

aircraft/aircraft-timeline.asp. Last accessed 9th Nov 2014.

[4] Smithsonian. (2014). The Breakthrough concept. Available:

http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/ wright-brothers/online/fly/1899/breakthrough.cfm. Last
accessed 9th Nov 2014.

[5] Smithsonian. (2014). 1909 Wright Military Flyer. Available: http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/

artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19120001000. Last accessed 9th Nov 2014.

[6] Gordon, Y (2004). Early Soviet Jet Bombers. Midland: Mid-land Publishing.

[7] Weiland, R (1959). Aircraft Control Surface Operating Mechanism. USA.

[8] Pearsall, E (1945). Aircraft Control System. USA. P1-3.

[9] PilotFriend. (2000). primary flight controls. Available: http://

www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/ primary.htm. Last accessed 28th Oct 2014.

[10] Malcolm.J.Azbug & E. Eugine Larabee (2002). Air-craft stability and control. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge university press. p80-82.

[11] Journal - IJETAE. (2013). International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering. Roger W. Pratt. Flight control systems: practical issues in design and implementation
edited Evolution of Aircraft Flight Control System. pages 1- 5

[12] Sweet haven . (2008). Lesson 2. BASIC CON-STRUCTION AND OPERATION OF HYDRAULIC. 1 (1),
P2-5.

[13]] Journal - NAVWEPS. (15th july 1965). F-4 Natops Flight manual . RF-4B Navy model . p1.

[14] Schmitt, Vernon R, Morris, James W, Jenney, Gavin D (1998). Fly-by-wire: a historical and design
perspective. United States: SAE International. p9-11.

[15] SKYbrary. (2013). Fly-By-Wire. Available: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fly-By-Wire. Last

accessed 19th Nov 2014.

17
[16] Pakmehr, M. (2014). A Review of Fiber Optic Networks for Turbine Engine Instrumentation
Channel: Control, PHM, and Test Cell Applications. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. 1 (1), p1-2, 8, 10, 14.

[17] Deagel. (2008). Gulfstream Demonstrates Fly-By-Light Aircraft Control System. Available:
http://www.deagel.com/news/Gulfstream-Demonstrates-Fly-By-Light-Aircraft-Control-
System_n000003886.aspx. Last accessed 8th Nov 2014.

[18] FERRY, J. W. (2010). THRUST MEASUREMENT OF DIE-LECTRIC BARRIER DISCHARGE PLASMA.

MIS-SOURI , USA: MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

[19] LAZAR, E. S. (2011). DISSERTATION. FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS AND APPLICATION OF PLASMA

ACTUA-TORS FOR HIGH-SPEED FLOWS. Urbana, Illinois, USA: University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.

[20] Touchard, G. (2008). Plasma actuators for aeronautics applications - State of art review- .
France: Laboratoire d'Etudes Arodynamiques, Boulevard Marie et Pierre Curie.

[21] Wei, Q., Niu, Z., Chen, B., & Huang, X. (2012). Airfoil Roll Control by Bang-Bang Optimal Control
Method with Plas-ma Actuators. Beijing, Peoples Republic of China : Pe-king University, Aviation
Industry Corporation of China.

[22] Plaistow Pictorial. (2014). 12. The Avro Lancaster 1 (four 1280HP Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12
Motors). Available: http://www.avrosys.demon.co.uk/bomber/cutaway.htm. Last Accessed 17th Nov
2014.

[23] Phaedra Hise. (2003). The 1903 Wright Flyer. Available: http://www.airspacemag.com/ how-
things-work/the-1903-wright-flyer- 3867542/?no-ist. Last accessed 9th Nov 2014.

[24] Web. (2014). Avro 504. Available: http:// www.historylearningsite.co.uk/avro_504.htm. Last

accessed 10th Nov 2014.

[25] Staff Writer. (2014). Fokker D. VIII. Available:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=204. Last accessed 20th Oct 2014.

[26] Staff Writer. (2014). Avro Lancaster. Available:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=234. Last accessed 17th Nov 2014.

[27] Orion. (2003). Pros and Cons of Aerodynamic balancing. Available:

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/2037-
pros-cons-aerodynamic-balancing.html. Last accessed 20th Nov 2014.

[28] Joe Yoon. (2012). Origins of Control Surfaces. Available: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/

question/history/q0103.shtml. Last accessed 9th Nov 2014.

1
[29] Smithsonian. (2013). Wing-Warpping. Available: http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/
multimedia/detail.cfm?id=5791. Last accessed 9th Nov 2014.

[30] Air Council (2005). Pilot's and Flight Engineer's Notes Lancaster. 3rd edition: Plane Design. P9-
16.

[31] Props, Pistons, Old Jets and the Good Ole Days of Flying. (2011).FLYING THE EARLY BOEING 707-
80 THE" DASH EIGHTY. Available: http://
propspistonsandoldairliners.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/flying-early- boeing-707-80-dash-eighty.html.
Last accessed 22nd Oct 2014.

[32] Garg, A. Linda, R. Chowdhury, T. (2013). Evolution of Air- craft Flight Control System and Fly-By-
Light Flight Control Sys-tem. Available: http://www.ijetae.com/files/Volume3Issue12/
IJETAE_1213_11.pdf. Last accessed 24th Oct 2014.

[33] Know To This Aeronautical Airplane Engineering Knowledge. (2012). Introduction to Flight
Controls. Available: http:// knowtothis.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/introduction-to-flight-
controls.html#.VFphUPmsVb4. Last accessed 21st Oct 2014.

[34] Sobolev, D. Khazanov, D. (2010). 150 High-Speed Bomber OKB-1.Available:

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/150.shtml. Last accessed 22nd Oct 2014.

[35] Code 7700. (2013). Flight Controls (27) Gust Lock. Available:
http://code7700.com/g450_gust_lock.html. Last accessed 26th Oct 2014.

[36] Jirka Wagner. (2012). McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Available:
http://www.military.cz/usa/air post_war/f4/f4_en.htm. Last accessed 6th Nov 2014.

[37] Schmitt, Vernon R; Morris, James W; Jenney, Gavin D (1998). Fly-by-wire: a historical and design
perspective. United States: SAE International. p1-5.

[38] Boeing 777. (2014). fly by wire airplane image. Available:

http://bits.me.berkeley.edu/me39c/Spring97/Projects/b777/flightdeck2.html. Last accessed 10th
Nov 2014.

[39] Rc4ever. (2014). FLY BY WIRE. Available: http://rc4ever.net/projects/fly-by-wire-project/. Last

accessed 8th Nov 2014.

[40] Wright, S. (2014). UFMFB7-30-2 Avionics, Lecture 3 Architectures. Department of

Engineering Design and Mathematics. University of the West of England. Slides 16 22.

[41] National Instruments. (2014). Controller Area Network (CAN) Overview. Available:
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/2732/en/. Last accessed 3rd Dec 2014.

2
[42] ANON. (2013). Aero India 2013! Available: http://deepak-the-plane-fanatic.blogspot.co.uk/. Last
accessed 2nd Dec 2014.

[43] Garg, A. Linda, R. Chowdhury, T. (2013). Evolution of Aircraft Flight Control System and Fly-By-
Light Flight Control System. Available: http:// www.ijetae.com/files/Volume3Issue12/
IJETAE_1213_11.pdf. Last accessed 8 Nov 2014.

[44] Aviation dictionary. (2014). fly-by-light. Available:

http://aviation_dictionary.enacademic.com/2976/fly-by-light. Last accessed 8th Nov 2014.

[45] Tariq Chady (2013). Airbus vs Boeing Composite Materials: The skys the limit Le Mauricien.
[Online] Available at: http://www.lemauricien.com/article/airbus-versus-boeing-composite-
materials-sky-s-limit Last accessed 21 Nov 2014.

[46] Eurofighter Typhoon. (2013). Flight Control System (FCS). Available:

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/flight-sys.html. Last accessed 3rd Dec 2014.

[47] Noor, Ahmed K.; Samuel Venneri,. "Future flight." Mechanical Engineering-CIME. American
Society of Mechanical En-gineers. 1994. HighBeam Research. Available: http:// www.highbeam.com
Last accessed 23 Oct. 2014.

[48] Ying-hong Li, Yun Wu, Hui-min Song, Hua Liang and Min Jia (2011). Plasma Flow Control,
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Prof. Max Mulder (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-473-3, InTech, DOI:
10.5772/17935.

[49] Boeuf, J.-P., Lagmich, Y., & Pitchford, L. (2005). Electrohydro-dynamic force and aerodynamic
flow acceleration in sur-face dielectric barrier discharges. Journal of Applied Phys-ics, 4-7.

[50] Friedrichs, W. (2012). The PLASMAERO Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Available: http://
www.plasmaactuators.tu-darmstadt.de: http:// www.plasmaactuators.tu-
darmstadt.de/projekte_7/ experimental_projekts/in_flight_experiments/
subsonicflightplatformforexperimentsinrealisticconditions/ index.en.jsp. Last accessed 27th Oct
2014.

[51] Hirotaka Otsu, Y. K. (2010). ATTITUDE CONTROL OF UAV USING DBD PLASMA ACTUATOR.
INTERNATION-AL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES ICAS2010, (pp. 1-4). Japan.

[52] Revolutionary Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles With Plasma Actuators. 2014. Revolutionary
Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles With Plasma Actuators. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Plasma_Actuators.html. Accessed 19 November
2014.

3
[53] Wright Brothers' first flight . 2013. Wright Brothers' first flight . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://whenintime.com/EventDetails.aspx?e=a7fae26f-5806-4785-a95f-
22aaf670b6dd&t=/tl/MooreGJ/Scientist_/. [Accessed 15 December 2014].

[54] Avro Lancaster. 2014. Avro Lancaster. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.backtonormandy.org/stories/755-avro-lancaster.html?showall=1. [Accessed 15
December 2014].

[55] Mcdonnell douglas f4 phantom wallpaper | Wallpaper Wide HD . 2014. Mcdonnell douglas f4
phantom wallpaper | Wallpaper Wide HD . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://wallpaperwidehd.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/mcdonnell-douglas-f4-phantom-wallpaper.html.
[Accessed 16 December 2014].

[56] Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 102 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net. 2014. Photos:
Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 102 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/1550081/L/.
[Accessed 17 December 2014].

[57] Mike D'Alessandro, Gulfstream GV Reaches Impressive Milestone. 2012. Gulfstream GV Reaches
Impressive Milestone. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.magellanjets.com/blog/bid/106348/Gulfstream-GV-Reaches-Impressive-Milestone.
[Accessed 10 December 2014].

[58] Humes McCoy Aviation -Jet Aircraft for Sale - Boeing 707. 2010. Humes McCoy Aviation -Jet
Aircraft for Sale - Boeing 707. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.humesmccoyaviation.com/pages/aircraft/boeing_707.html. [Accessed 10 December
2014].