The VAAC Harrier Design Study

RA Hyde
Cambridge Control Ltd, Crowley Road, Cambridge CB4 4WZ, UK.

rick_hyde@camcontrol.co.ok

ABSTRACT
An experimental flight control law for the Defence and Evaluation Research Authority (DERA) VAAC Harrier has
been developed using H∞ loop-shaping. This paper addresses the use of multivariable design methods for flight
control. Although not currently used for production aircraft, multivariable control may bring real benefits for future
aircraft and RPV programmes both in terms of reduced design time (cost) and enhanced vehicle performance.

THE VAAC HARRIER DESIGN STUDY
R A Hyde
Cambridge Control Ltd, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 4WZ, UK.
rick_hyde@camcontrol.co.uk
ABSTRACT
An experimental flight control law for the
Defence and Evaluation Research Authority
(DERA) VAAC Harrier has been developed
using H ∞ loop-shaping. This paper addresses
the use of multivariable design methods for
flight control. Although not currently used for
production aircraft, multivariable control may
bring real benefits for future aircraft and RPV
programmes both in terms of reduced design
time (cost) and enhanced vehicle performance.
INTRODUCTION
The experimental flight control law which is
presented in this paper was initially developed at
Cambridge University [1], [2] between 1988 and
1993. At around this time there were a number of
promising new control design methods which
could potentially provide more systematic ways
to design for complex multivariable systems. At
the same time the aerospace community was
beginning to look at more unusual airframes
which could offer better agility and/or lower
radar cross-sections. It was generally recognised
that these airframes would present a more
challenging control design problem than for
aircraft in current development. In the light of
this, a collaborative programme was initiated
between DERA Bedford and Cambridge
University. The work culminated in flight testing
of an H ∞ multivariable controller on the DERA
VAAC Harrier in 1993. This control law is one
of a number of control laws being evaluated by
DERA.
One aspect of future air vehicles is likely to be
strong cross-coupling between primary
motivators and outputs under control. The
Harrier exhibits significant cross-coupling in the
1
Copyright  1999 Cambridge Control Ltd.
Published by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with
permission.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA-99-4278
partially jet-borne flight regime. Here, a change
in thrust direction (for example) causes changes
in the forward, normal and pitching motion of
the aircraft. This results in a high workload on
the pilot, and is a contributory factor in limiting
the availability of the aircraft in adverse weather
and poor visibility conditions. There is also a
cost penalty in the extra training and subsequent
flying hours required for pilots to remain current.
Future ASTOVL aircraft are likely to exhibit
much higher cross-coupling than the Harrier.
One reason for this is that the centre of thrust is
likely to act further away from the centre of
gravity for performance reasons.
Figure 1: The VAAC Harrier
Such cross-coupled systems are often referred to
by the control community as multivariable
systems. Designing for this type system using
successive loop closure can be difficult and
necessitate many design iterations. The
fundamental problem is that classical design
approaches generally result in de-coupled
controller structures. However, it is intuitive that
a coupled system requires a coupled controller to
extract the best performance and/or stability
from it. There are a number of multivariable
design methods, one of which is the H ∞ loop-
shaping approach used here.
The control law described in this paper has been
designated Flight Control Law 005 (FCL005) by
DERA, and is the only multivariable feedback
controller flight tested to-date. Thus one of the
objectives of the development of FCL005 is to
demonstrate how multivariable control could be
applied to a real engineering problem, and to get
an understanding of any additional complications
there might be in using a multivariable
architecture for production aircraft. The VAAC
provides the ideal platform on which to do this
as the control law is not safety critical given the
aircraft’s independent safety monitor plus safety
pilot configuration [3].
FLIGHT TASK
The purpose of this section is to provide some
background information on the particular flight
control task studied. The task is recovery to an
aircraft carrier or destroyer. On a conventional
Harrier, a typical approach will involve the pilot
bringing down the nozzles (i.e. the direction of
the vectored thrust) in discrete steps in order to
replace aerodynamic lift with powered lift as
airspeed drops. This might consist of nozzle
way-points of 20, 40, 65 and 80 degrees. Each
time the nozzles are moved, adjustments to the
throttle are required to maintain the long-term
flight path. The pilot operates both the nozzles
and throttle with his left hand. The adjustments
to throttle and nozzle also induce pitching
moments which the pilot controls with his right
hand on the stick.
By appropriate manipulation of the his three
primary inputs, the pilot needs to:
• Maintain flight path
• Use available aerodynamic lift safely
through appropriate control of incidence
• End up in the hover alongside the ship
The strategy being investigated by DERA is to
reduce the associated high pilot workload with
this task by using a two-inceptor strategy. In
essence this means that the pilot directly controls
flight path and deceleration/airspeed with two
primary controls (inceptors). The third degree of
freedom is handled automatically by the control
law. Thus the control law has to manage the
balance between using aerodynamic lift (via
appropriate incidence) and powered lift (via
appropriate vertical thrust component). This
presents a particularly challenging control
problem given the strong cross coupling between
the three primary motivators and the forward,
normal and pitching motions.
LINEAR DESIGN
Full details of the linear designs carried out for
the version of 005 flight tested in 1993 can be
found in [4]. Since then the control law
architecture has been updated. This section
describes the updated linear design at 137 knots
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
and illustrates the design process. In total, four
design points are used in total to cover the hover
to 250 knots speed range.
The control law only addresses the longitudinal
control of the aircraft. This is the harder design
task given the vectored thrust capability. The
primary motivators available to the control law
are:
• Tailplane and Reaction Control System
(RCS) (which is back-driven from the
tailplane position).
• Throttle position
• Nozzle angle
• Flap angle
The flaps are driven in an open-loop schedule as
a function of airspeed, and are not used for
feedback. Thus the feedback control law
demands tailplane, throttle and nozzle angle. To
improve the linearity of the control design
problem, a controls selector is used with input
demands of normal and forward thrust in body
axes, and outputs of throttle and nozzle servo
demands. The controls selector also compensates
for the non-linear relationship between throttle
setting and resulting engine thrust.
Key to a good design is to choose an appropriate
control law architecture. The pilot wishes to
command airspeed and flight path changes, and
to have the control law manage the use of
aerodynamic and powered lift effectively. In
particular the aircraft incidence needs to be kept
within safe limits. From experience with earlier
versions of FCL005, the resolved thrust demands
can not be used much above 1.5 radians/s
without causing potential problems with nozzle
backlash and the control law’s cancellation of the
non-linear throttle-thrust relationship. However,
the tailplane and back-driven RCS system can be
used up to about 7 radians/s.
The ability to use higher open-loop cross-overs
in the pitch loop suggests that an inner loop pitch
rate feedback could be used to reduce the effect
of the induced pitching moment when thrust
magnitude and direction are changed. The inner
loop also serves to reduce the effect of
turbulence on the pitching motion. An inner
pitch loop was therefore designed for FCL005,
and feeds back the composite measurement
q + θ . This has the effect of using q to set the
loop-shape at cross-over, and θ to achieve good
gain below cross-over. This idea is explained
more in [4].
A three-input three-output outer feedback loop is
then placed around this inner loop. The outer
loop controls normal and forward acceleration,
and incidence. Figure 2 shows a schematic block
diagram of the feedback structure. The inclusion
of incidence as a feedback variable follows from
the requirement to use available lift and to keep
away from the incidence limit. However, instead
of choosing normal and forward accelerations,
flight path angle and airspeed could have been
chosen. The reason for choosing normal
acceleration is that the pilot commands
accelerations. The alternative of feeding the pilot
demand through an integrator to give an
equivalent flight path demand introduces
unnecessary lag which would result in poor
handling qualities.
The outputs controlled at 137 knots are chosen to
be:
• x + λ x x
• z + λ z z
• α (incidence)
where λi are constants, x and z are body axes
accelerations, and x and z are body axes
velocities. The addition of velocities to the
acceleration measurements provides a way of
implementing speed holds (equivalently airspeed
and flight path holds) in the steady-state. At
higher airspeeds where the nozzles are fully aft,
control of z + λ z z is washed out. Given good
control of the three primary outputs as defined
above, the required flight response types can
then be implemented through appropriate design
of a precompensator.
The H ∞ loop-shaping design approach consists
of selecting open-loop weighting functions for
the nominal plant. This weighting process is
exactly like classical loop-shaping, and is carried
out without regard to the plant cross-coupling.
An optimal controller (in the H ∞ loop-shaping
sense) can then be synthesised using the solution
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
of [5]. This optimal controller will have cross-
terms, and take account of the cross-coupling in
the plant.
The plant G in Figure 2 includes Pade
approximations for the 20 ms computational
delay and first order roll-off filters on each input.
1
The roll-off filters have the form ,
0.0435s + 1
and are implemented on each of the aircraft
measurements. These are in addition to filtering
already included in the aircraft software
environment. Including the roll-off filters at the
actuators for design is legitimate as an identical
transfer function on all loops can be
implemented anywhere without changing the
plant singular values. The structure and design of
the controller is now described in more detail.
Inner loop feedback of q + θ
The inner loop feedback was designed using
classical loop shaping. The compensator is pure
proportional control:
Wq ( s) = 3.0
The possibility of using a combination of phase
advance and integral action to boost the
performance of this inner loop was also looked
at. However, this was found to reduce the
performance achievable from the outer
multivariable controller. The open loop cross-
over is 4.6 radians/s. Figure 3 shows the open-
loop Nichols plot. The region bounded by the
dotted line is an exclusion region which the
Nyquist plot should not enter for a robust design.
The inner loop feedback gain is scheduled as a
function if indicated airspeed so as to just satisfy
this Nichols exclusion region requirement.
Multivariable outer loop
The plant input weight for the three-input three-
output outer loop controller is given by:
2 
s 
 3 
W1 ( s) =  
 s 
 3
 s 
The design plant was also scaled at the input by
3 0 0 
Si = 0 3 0  , and out the output by
0 0 10
0.2 0 0
S o =  0 0.2 0 . The scaling of inputs and
 0 0 1
outputs follows the design procedure guidelines
given in [1]. Scaling is important as it can be
used to trade-off the relative amounts of cross-
coupling seen between loops. Figure 4 shows the
shaped singular values. The open-loop cross-
overs are in the range 1 to 2.5 radians/s. The
shaped plant was discretised using a zero order
hold (i.e. sample and hold), and direct discrete
time H ∞ used to synthesise K∞ . In order to get
the controller in discrete time observer form, the
discrete time solution in [6] isused. The final
controller has 21 states, and achieves a
robustness margin of ε = 0.40 . Time responses
are shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7.
In the original version of 005, the linear designs
also made use of the align algorithm proposed in
[7]. This essentially aligns the singular values at
a chosen frequency (typically cross-over) with a
constant real matrix. The effect on robustness of
using the align algorithm is an open area of
research. In practice, if the align matrix is ill-
conditioned (i.e. has large gains in some
directions and small gains in others), then
robustness may be compromised. Use of the
align matrix can help obtain better time-domain
de-coupling than not using it. With FCL005 it
makes a minor improvement, and it was decided
that the extra complexity was not justified.
MODEL REDUCTION
The complexity of a multivariable controller can
be reduced using standard model reduction
methods. In the original version of 005 [4], the
controller order was reduced by model reducing
the design plant before design. The model
reduction was restricted to those dynamics which
remained constant between operating points i.e.
the sensors, actuators and time delays. The
aircraft and engine states were not included in
the model reduction as this would have resulted
in adjacent controllers not having the same
structure which in turn prevents gain scheduling
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
of the controller matrices. The ‘full order’ 21
state design for 137 knots was model reduced in
the same way.
The current version of FCL005 does not use
controller coefficient interpolation. Instead, the
controller outputs are interpolated (see next
section). Hence the controller can be reduced
directly. The 21 state controller designed for the
137 knot operating point was model reduced
using balanced truncation of a normalised
coprime factorisation of the controller. Model
reducing the coprime factors of the controller
and then re-constructing the controller from the
reduced order factors generally results in lower
orders being achievable than if the controller is
reduced directly. This is because the
normalisation step indirectly has the effect of
weighting the reduction around open-loop cross-
over frequencies. Table 1 shows the results of
using this method of reduction. The second
column gives the δυ -gap between the 21 state
controller and the controller of order given by
the first column. The third column gives the
coprime factor robustness actually achieved by
the reduced controller.
It has been found that that the δυ -gap is a good
measure of the preservation of controller cross
terms and hence decoupling. Based on the results
in Table 1, and time response analysis, an eighth
order controller was chosen. This gives near
identical time responses to those shown in
Figures 5, 6 and 7.
If the controller is implemented in a modal form
(i.e. where the A-matrix is diagonal), then the
number of parameters which are needed to define
it is 8 for the A-matrix, 8*3 for the B-matrix, 3*8
for the C-matrix and 3*3 for the D-matrix giving
a total of 65 parameters. Implementing this
controller would require 54 additions and 65
multiplications per controller update.
An attempt was made to improve the 5th order
controller using the δν -gap minimisation
optimisation proposed in [8]. After 10 iterations,
the δν -gap was reduced to 0.0971, indicating a
much improved match. However, the time
domain performance with the reduced order
controller is poor. It is concluded that the best
realisation in terms of the performance versus
complexity trade-off is the 8 state controller.
This is not a particularly high order when it is An alternative to interpolation of controller
considered that the controller is three-input coefficients is to interpolate controller outputs. In
three-output. In other words, each input-output this approach all of the controller designs are run
pair averages less than one state. It would seem in parallel, and the particular controller’s outputs
highly likely that no simpler controller used to drive the actuators is selected according
implementation can be found which does not to current flight condition. The advantage is that
degrade either stability or performance. the controller structure is no longer required to
be the same from one design point to the next.
This allows the use of direct model reduction of
Controller δν -gap ε achieved the controller as discussed in the previous
order by reduced section. It also allows the feedback structure to
from full change from one design point to the next. This
order order
controller allows a different structure to be used in the
controller hover for FCL005. For the hover, the inner loop
21 0 0.4017 pitch rate damping is blended out between 100
and 80 knots, and incidence control is blended
20 0 0.4017 out in exchange for pitch attitude control.
19 0 0.4017 In order to ensure that the controller states
18 0 0.4017 remain consistent with the actual plant inputs (as
opposed to the controller outputs), an observer
17 0 0.4017 form is used for K ∞ . The observer is then
16 0 0.4017 driven with actual plant inputs instead of the
demanded ones.
15 0 0.4017
If the controllers use different weighting
14 0 0.4017 functions, then each of these need to be run in
13 0.0020 0.4017 parallel as well. With FCL005 the weighting
functions are implemented in the form shown in
12 0.0033 0.4017 Figure 8. This form was originally proposed in
11 0.0114 0.4017 [9]. This same structure is also used to allow for
actuator saturation e.g. maximum/minimum
10 0.0133 0.4017 thrust and nozzle angle limits.
9 0.0215 0.4018 The implementation in Figure 8 is derived as
follows. Suppose the open loop controller is
8 0.0341 0.4018
given by:
7 0.0900 0.3749
v = AK v + BK y
6 0.0929 0.3751
u = C K v + DK y
5 0.2256 0.3553
By left multiplying the output (second) equation
Table 1 : controller order reduction
by matrix H , and subtracting from the first
GAIN SCHEDULING equation, an equivalent (in terms of input-output
The original implementation of FCL005 [4] response) realisation is:
implemented the controllers in observer form so v = ( AK − HC K )v + ( B K − HDK ) y + Hu
that controller gains could be interpolated as a
function of flight condition. This resulted in four u = C K v + DK y
20 state controllers, each defined by 640 floating The eigenvalues of the controller are now set by
point numbers. Implementation required
interpolation of each of these numbers every AK − HC K . Under normal operation, these
time step, and was a high computational poles are not seen by the system under control.
overhead. However, in the event of input saturation, the
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
state equation can be driven by the achieved
control input, u . This is illustrated in Figure 8.
For the 137 knot design, the poles of
AK − HC K were assigned to –5, -6 and –7
radians/s. The choice of pole location is a trade-
off between tracking current inputs and not
propagating sensor noise.
Another alternative approach which was used for
the original implementation of FCL005 is that
proposed in [10]. However, this approach
requires the pre-compensator to be invertible
which, in the case of the 137 knot controller
described here, it is not.
IMPLEMENTATION
The control law was originally implemented in
FORTRAN for non-real-time simulation and for
piloted simulation on the DERA simulator. For
implementation on the aircraft the FORTRAN
version was converted by hand to CORAL. The
control law is now implemented in Simulink.
The top control law level is shown in Figure 9.
Figure 10 shows simulation results of a stick free
deceleration to hover. Flight path is controlled
within about a degree of its set-point down to 50
knots. At lower speeds that this height rate is
controlled as flight path becomes ill-defined.
DERA have updated the aircraft hardware and
software so that Real-Time Workshop (RTW)
can be used to produce the flight code from the
Simulink implementation of the control law. As
has already been pointed out, the experimental
flight control code is not safety critical because
of the VAAC independent monitor and safety
pilot configuration
FLIGHT TESTING
The control law was first tested on the VAAC
Harrier in 1993 [4]. It engaged first time without
significant transients. For the control law to be
engaged, it must be demanding actuator
positions within ten percent of their actual
positions. The observer implementation
combined with off-line conditioning of W1
ensures that the demands are close, and it was
commented that the control law engages very
quickly.
Within the first two flights, the whole design
envelope right down to the hover was explored.
There was no sign of the onset of instabilities
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
during the flight. This is testament to the control
law having sufficient robustness to any
differences between the design model and the
aircraft. For first flight trials, the tests carried out
went very smoothly. This may in part be seen as
a result of the coprime factor uncertainty
modelling being appropriate for the actual
uncertainty encountered between the model and
the aircraft.
Currently the control law is undergoing further
evaluation and development, and it is hoped that
the designs presented in this paper will be flown
in the near future. Post-flight stability analysis is
also planned using the methods developed and
applied to the VAAC in [11]. The approach
enables an upper bound on the achieved value of
ε to be determined.
APPLICATION TO FUTURE AIRCRAFT
Flight control law 005 has been developed for an
experimental research aircraft. To the author’s
best knowledge, no multivariable control law has
ever flown on a production aircraft. One of the
objectives of the development of FCL005 was
therefore to look at whether there would be
additional complications in flight clearing a
multivariable control law. The three main issues
considered are:
• Visibility i.e. how easy is it to understand
the operation of the control law i.e. how
easy would it be for another engineer to pick
up the design party way through?
• Stability i.e. how do you demonstrate that
the potentially de-stabilising effect of
airframe cross terms has been rigorously
analysed?
• Numerical i.e. are there additional numerical
and/or implementation issues associated
with a multivariable state-space
implementation.
It could be argued that visibility of multivariable
state-space controllers is less than their single-
input single-output transfer function counterparts
in a conventional design. The state-space
implementation contains states which are shared
between several input-output pairs. Furthermore,
from a block diagram it can not be seen what the
controller does, whereas the effect of a simple
lead-lag term, integrator or roll-off is clear.
However, there is a converse argument. With a
multivariable controller, to understand the reason
for the controller dynamics you have to go back
to the design formulation and requirements. The
visibility comes from understanding how the
design method meets the requirements. For a
coupled system for which conventional design
and stability analysis methods are stretched to
the limit, it could be argued that an optimal
multivariable approach actually gives better
visibility.
This leads onto the second point about
demonstrating that the controller has sufficient
stability margins. Requirements for current
development aircraft are typically based on
exclusion regions in the Nichols chart for
individual loops. This is augmented with tests
involving simultaneous gain and phase offsets in
all loops. For any cross-coupled (multivariable)
system, this may not be an optimal approach, and
is likely to produce a conservative design.
Furthermore, it does not directly take account of
uncertainty in the cross terms. Alternative
measures of robustness which are suitable for
coupled systems are available. The coprime
factor uncertainty measure used for FCL005 is
one example.
The third issue concerns numerical aspects. In
the same way as for simple transfer functions,
care is needed when implementing a state-space
compensator. A major process difference is that
for classical controllers the numerical
implementation issues may be left to the
software engineer. For a multivariable
compensator it may make better sense for the
flight dynamics & control engineer to specify
numerical scaling. This is because he has more
insight into what the controller does. Updates to
the control law (e.g. based on new aerodynamic
data) will result in changes to the numbers in the
state-space matrices.
CONCLUSIONS
The development and flight testing of Control
Law 005 has demonstrated the practicality of
multivariable and H ∞ control. The method
provides a systematic way to design for highly
coupled airframes. Coprime factor uncertainty
may also provide a more appropriate stability
metric for such airframes, regardless of control
design method used. Successful flight testing
adds confidence that the uncertainty set used is
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
appropriate to the actual differences between the
aircraft and the aircraft model.
However, before such methods are used for
production aircraft, the potential benefits in
terms of reduced design costs and increased
performance need to be quantified. The updated
version of FCL005 described in this paper could
go some way towards doing this. The control law
is now sufficiently mature for more detailed
handling qualities assessment.
On the flight clearance side, work is on-going
with DERA Bedford to identify the main issues.
In the author’s view, given a proven advantage to
using a multivariable control law, the issue of
clearance is not insurmountable. Current work is
directed towards relating coprime factor
uncertainty to currently used Nichols exclusion
region tests. Related to this is the determination
of achieved stability margins from flight data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The earlier design work was carried out with
Professor K Glover at Cambridge University
Engineering Department. The work has been
supported by DERA Bedford via Cambridge
University and more recently via Cambridge
Control. The work at Cambridge University was
also supported by the Science and Engineering
Research Council (now EPSRC).
REFERENCES
[1] Hyde, R.A. and Glover, K. “The application
of scheduled H-infinity controllers to VSTOL
aircraft”. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, July 1993. Volume 38, Number 7
[2] Hyde, R.A., Glover, K. and Shanks, G.T.
“VSTOL first flight of an H-infinity control
law”. IEE Computing and Control Engineering
Journal, Volume 6, Number 1, pp 11-16,
February 1995.
[3] Shanks, G.T. and D’Mello, G.W. “Adding
Confidence to Future STOVL Integrated
Designs”, Royal Aeronautical Society
International Powered Lift Conference, 2-4th
September 1998, London UK.
[4] Hyde, R.A. “ H ∞ Aerospace Control – A
VSTOL Flight Application”. Advances in
Industrial Control series, Springer 1995. ISBN 3-
540-19960-8.
[5] Glover, K. and McFarlane, D.C. “Robust
Stabilisation of normalised coprime factor plant
descriptions with H ∞ -bounded uncertainty”.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
34(8):821-830, 1989.
[6] Iglesias, P. “Robust Adaptive Control for
Discrete Time Systems”. PhD thesis, University
of Cambridge, 1991.
[7] Kouvaritakis, B. “Characteristic Locus
Method for Multivariable Feedback Systems
Design”. PhD thesis, University of Manchester
1974.
[8] Vinnicombe, G. “Measuring the Robustness
of Feedback Systems”. PhD thesis, Churchill
College, University of Cambridge, December
1992.
[9] Astrom, K.J. and Wittenmark, B. “Computer
Controlled Systems Theory and Design”,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984.
[10] Hanus, R., Kinnaert, M. and Henrotte, J.L.
“Conditioning technique, a general anti-windup
and bumpless transfer method”, Automatica
23(6):729-739, 1987.
[11] Davis, R.A. “Model Validation for Robust
Control”. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,
January 1995.

K∞

xb + λx xb


zb + λx zb

Loop-shaping
G α
Weight, W1 ( s)

Wq ( s) q
θ
q +θ

Figure 2: control law feedback structure

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1 Step on azcg+zlam*vz
10
1

0.8

0.6
gain

0
10
0.4

0.2

−1
10
−180 −170 −160 −150 −140 −130 −120 −110 −100 −90 −0.2
phase (degrees) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 3: Nichols plot for the pitch rate loop Figure 6: normal acceleration step response
Step on incidence
Shaped singular values 1.2
4
10

2 1
10

0 0.8
10

−2 0.6
10

10
−4 0.4

−6 0.2
10

−8
10 0

−10
10 −0.2
10
−2 −1
10 10
0 1
10 10
2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 4: shaped singular values Figure 7: incidence step response

Step on axcg+xlam*vx
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

−0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 5: forward acceleration step response

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 DK

r e v v u N u G ( s) y
I
BK − HDK CK
s

AK − HC K

Figure 8: block diagram of K ∞ implementation with self-conditioning

1 2
stick 8 em
stick dead−band speed demand
demx2knots
and offset disti1 (demx)

Mux AXF

+ AZF
+ + em + Mux 1 5 K
+ em Mux K + +
out meas scale2
blend out AZF 0.1*ETADA ++
+ scale
− 0.1 4
W1
+ alfad
0.1 measurements
wsys(V) 7
AZF Mux
schedule 3
−
precompensator + disto2
3 inv(scale) 1/z
FLAG130 Mux − em 6
+
q+thetr achieved
2 actuators
10.0
disto1
10

observers

Figure 9: Simulink implementation of FCL005

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2

flight path (degs)

0

−1

−2

−3

−4

−5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

300

250
airspeed (knots)
200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

12

10
incidence (degs)

−2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10

8
attitude (degs)

−2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

80
nozzle angle (degs)

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1.1

0.9
fan speed

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time (seconds)

Figure 10: simulation of a deceleration to hover on the non-linear model

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The MathWorks, Inc.
3 Apple Hill Drive
Natick, MA 01760-2098 USA
Tel: 508-647-7000
Fax: 508-647-7101
E-mail: info@mathworks.com
www.mathworks.com

© 1999 by The MathWorks, Inc. All rights reserved. MATLAB, Simulink, Stateflow, Handle Graphics, and Real-Time Workshop are registered trademarks, and Target Language Compiler is a trademark of
The MathWorks, Inc. Other product or brand names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

9817v00 12/99