New Twist in Flight Research
New Twist in Flight Research
New Twist in Flight Research
Merlin
Peter W. Merlin
ISBN 978-1-62683-012-7
90000
9 781626 830127
Table of Contents
135
158
159
166
Bibliography 172
Acknowledgments 178
About the Author
179
Index 181
iii
Wilbur Wright makes a right turn in the 1902 glider. The three-axis control system made this
craft the worlds first fully controllable flying machine. (Library of Congress)
iv
Introduction:
The human desire to fly can be traced back at least as far as the second century
B.C. Greek legend of Icarus, who attempted to fly with wings made from
bird feathers and beeswax. Since birds are naturally efficient flyers, it is not
surprising that they have served as an inspiration to both casual observers and
serious scholars of flight.1 In fact, lessons learned from the study of birds in
centuries past may have a significant impact on future aircraft development.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Air Force, and industry researchers are using wing-shaping techniques that emulate the flexibility
of bird wings to develop flight controls for 21st-century airplanes.2
Florentine painter, sculptor, and scientist Leonardo da Vinci (14521519)
undertook some of the most serious early study of avian flying characteristics.
His extensive scientific observations led him to focus on how birds controlled
their flight by changing the shape of their wings to take advantage of wind and
air currents. He also made anatomical studies of bird and bat wings to define
their structural characteristics. Eventually, da Vinci designed a glider capable
of supporting the weight of a man. Bat-like wings featured a fixed inner section and a mobile outer section that could be flexed by hand-controlled cables.
The fliers position, with the wings balanced upon his shoulders, allowed him
to maintain balance by moving the lower part of his body. A tail assembly
provided additional stability.3
These concepts saw their first practical application four centuries later in
the designs of Wilbur and Orville Wright, of Dayton, OH, brothers who
lacked formal training in engineering or science. Their interest in solving the
1. Richard P. Hallion, Test Pilots: The Frontiersmen of Flight (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1988), p. 1.
2. Ed Pendleton, Back to the Future: How Active Aeroelastic Wings are a Return to Aviations
Beginnings and a Small Step to Future Bird-Like Wings, presented at the RTO AVT Symposium
on Active Control Technology for Enhanced Performance Operational Capabilities of Military
Aircraft, Land Vehicles and Sea Vehicles, Braunschweig, Germany, May 2000.
3. Martin Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci, the Marvellous Works of Nature and Man (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 104106, 248250.
vi
The Wrights developed a method for controlling their aircraft by twisting the airfoils. This wingwarping technique became a standard feature of their early airplanes. (Al Bowers collection)
vii
The first flight of the Wrights powered flyer took place on December 17, 1903. The distance traveled was equivalent to the fuselage length of a modern commercial transport. (Library of Congress)
seconds and covering a distance of 852 feet. Following this historic milestone, the
Wrights returned to Dayton to develop improved airplane designs that could be
flown repeatedly and reliably. Although they continued to use the wing warping
technique until 1911, they began experimenting in 1905 with a three-control
system that would dominate aircraft controls throughout the 20th century.7
Despite the Wrights innovative use of flexible airfoils, wing flexibility
affected other early airplane designs adversely. In fact, this characteristic likely
thwarted Samuel Pierpont Langleys attempt to develop a powered aircraft in
1903. Langley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, designed a tandem
monoplane with a 48-foot span and a distinct dihedral (up sweep). It was
driven by a 52.4-horsepower engine and launched by catapult from atop a
houseboat on the Potomac River. Langleys assistant, Charles Manly, made
two attempts to fly the craft in October and December 1903, but each ended
in dismal failure as the flying machine pitched down into the icy waters. The
first mishap resulted from a malfunction of the launch mechanism, in which a
pin failed to release and snagged a bracing wire on the front of the wing.8 On
7. Ibid., pp. 2931.
8. Ibid., pp. 2326.
viii
the second attempt, the wings snapped due to excessive flight loads, possibly
resulting from torsional divergence.9
Over the next several decades, designers worked to produce airplanes capable of withstanding higher speeds and greater aerodynamic loads. This resulted
in configurations with semi-monocoque structures in which the loads are carried partly by the frame and stringers, and partly by the skin. While flying
these aircraft, pilots soon discovered a wide variety of aeroelastic problems
including, among others, wing flutter, divergence, buffeting, and control reversal. Designers responded by increasing wing stiffness, but this also increased
structural weight. Aircraft designers often opted to reduce wingspan, increase
airfoil thickness, and accept reduced aerodynamic performance in exchange
for increased speed.10
In the early part of the 21st century, advances in materials and adaptive control technologies allowed aeronautical researchers to revisit the wing-warping
control technique pioneered by the Wright brothers and to take a small step
toward development of wings with a bird-like capability for changing shape to
optimize efficiency. This new concept, now known as Active Aeroelastic Wing
(AAW), is a synergistic technology that integrates air vehicle aerodynamics,
active controls, and structures to maximize aircraft performance. The concept
turns aeroelastic flexibilityonce a liabilityinto a net benefit through the
use of multiple leading- and trailing-edge control surfaces activated by a digital flight control system. Using these surfaces to control the wings aeroelastic
twist allows energy from the airstream to provide desired roll forces. When the
aircraft is subject to high dynamic pressures, the AAW control surfaces may
be used in the same manner that aerodynamic tabs are used to apply a force
moment that causes the control surfaces to change incidence and achieve trim.
In the case of AAW, the control surface acts as the tab and the resulting moment
counters an adverse aeroelastic twist. Additionally, AAW controls can minimize
drag at low wing-strain conditions and/or minimize structural loads at high
wing-strain conditions. With AAW technology, a lightweight flexible wing now
has a positive effect for generating control power rather than a negative one.11
AAW technology is considered especially synergistic with the use of thin,
flexible wings, allowing designers more freedom to exploit efficient, highaspect-ratio airfoils. Such technology may be used to improve the capabilities of
existing wing planforms as well as to reduce conflicting requirements between
stiff versus flexible wings for new aircraft with multiple mission requirements.
9. Pendleton, Back to the Future.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
ix
A modified F-18 jet fighter served as a test bed for AAW technology. The joint Air ForceNASABoeing effort demonstrated a modern equivalent of the wing-warping concept. (NASA)
to re-evaluate several test points with modified control laws and to evaluate the
ability of the AAW system to alleviate wing structural loads.16
Data from the flight research program effectively demonstrated the AAW
concept at comparatively low cost. The AAW project received funding from
NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, as well as from the U.S.
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The Boeing Companys Phantom
Works division in St. Louis, MO, performed the necessary wing modifications,
installed instrumentation, and assisted in software development under contract
with the AFRL and NASA. The programs total budget of approximately $45
million included about $29 million in direct monetary outlay and $16 million
for in-kind support, spread over 8 years.17
The successful demonstration of actively controlled wing-warping techniques for aircraft roll control at transonic speeds provided benchmark design
criteria as guidance for future aircraft designs. Aeronautical engineers can use
the results in designing more efficient, thinner, higher-aspect-ratio wings for
future high-performance aircraft while reducing structural weight of the wings
by approximately 10 to 20 percent. Resulting benefits will include increased
fuel efficiency, payload capability, and potentially reduced radar signature.
AAW technology has applications to future fighters, transports, and airliners,
as well as to high-altitude/long-endurance remotely piloted aircraft.18
16. NASA Fact Sheet, Back to the Future: Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research, http://www.nasa.gov/
centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-061-DFRC.html, December 9, 2009 (accessed May 15, 2012).
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
xi
This multiple-exposure image shows the AFW model at various angles of attack in the NASA
Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel. (NASA)
xii
Chapter 1:
Rockwells AFW concept exploited aerodynamic torque to control rolling motion. (NASA)
could reduce the takeoff gross weight of the ATF by approximately 18 percent.
Transonic model testing began in 1985 using the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel
(TDT) at NASAs Langley Flight Research Center, in Hampton, VA, under
a contract from the Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory (AFWAL).5
Under this contract, the AFWAL paid Rockwell to conduct tests in the
TDT, which was provided by Langley through an agreement with the Air
Force. Using company funds, Rockwell built a full-span, aeroelastically
scaled AFW test bed model representing an advanced tactical fighter configuration with two leading-edge and two trailing-edge control surfaces
driven by electrohydraulic actuators. The sting-mounted model was attached
to allow it freedom to roll about the axis of the sting or be locked in place
for static testing.6
Two independent AFW study programs utilized the AFW wind tunnel
test bed model. The first, sponsored by the Air Force, NASA, and Rockwell,
focused on demonstrating the basic AFW concept during two tests in 1986
and 1987. The first program proved the AFW concept in the wind tunnel. The
5. Notes on Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Technology Previous Efforts/Opportunities, March
1996, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
6. Stanley R. Cole, Thomas E. Noll, and Boyd Perry III, Transonic Dynamics Tunnel Aeroelastic
Testing in Support of Aircraft Development, Journal of Aircraft 40, no. 5 (SeptemberOctober
2003), p. 826.
The AFW wind tunnel model had six degrees of freedom and was extensively instrumented. (NASA)
the airfoil surface. The pivot could be locked, or coupled, to the wingtip during
flutter testing, and instantly unlocked in the event of flutter instability. In the
decoupled configuration, reduced stiffness increased the frequency of the wings
first torsion mode, moving the flutter condition to higher dynamic pressures.
Compatibility of AFW with systems for AFS, rolling maneuver load alleviation
(RMLA), and roll-rate tracking was crucial to demonstrating multiple-input,
multiple-output (MIMO) multiple-function digital control laws.12
The TDT tests also provided practical experience in designing, fabricating,
and implementing a real-time MIMO multiple-function digital controller for
use with the wind tunnel model. For increased fidelity, the model controller
needed to accurately represent the version to be used on a full-scale airplane.
It had to be programmed with easily modified or replaceable control laws and
be capable of sending and receiving both analog and discrete signals. It was
necessary for the controller to be capable of recording, storing, and transferring digitized signals. It also had to be capable of simultaneous execution of
both flutter suppression and rolling maneuver control laws, and it had to allow
for manual positioning of flight control surfaces. A SUN 3/160 workstation
driven by a Unix operating system served as a shell for the controller. Hardware
components included a host computer, two digital signal processors boards,
analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion boards, and an array processor board. Primary and backup systems afforded redundancy in case of a
processor board failure. Programmers developed a generic form of the control
law structure that allowed for changes to be easily and reliably implemented.13
In preparation for wind tunnel testing, researchers at NASA Langley developed aeroelastic equations of motion for the AFW model. These equations represented numerous combinations of Mach number and dynamic pressure for
four model configurations including fixed-in-roll (coupled and uncoupled) and
free-to-roll (coupled and uncoupled). Programmers at Langley used Rockwells
finite-element structural model of the AFW test article as a starting point on
which to build a database of mode shapes, frequencies, and generalized masses
for symmetric and antisymmetric elastic modes. Data for all model configurations included control-surface deflection modes, but only the free-to-roll
configurations featured rigid-body roll modes.14
The Langley team created linear aeroelastic equations of motion, combining
aerodynamic forces with stiffness, damping, and mass matrices. These secondorder, reduced-frequency-dependent equations were then used to perform flutter
12. Perry, Cole, and Miller, Summary of an Active Flexible Wing Program.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
AFW analytical studies and wind tunnel testing spanned nearly a decade and provided valuable
data for developing the Active Aeroelastic Wing concept. (NASA)
The AFW concept offered a variety of technology payoffs in the areas of roll control, maneuver
loads, and flutter suppression. (NASA)
in the 1986 entry was identical to that later used for the full-scale aircraft flight
control laws.23 Additionally, data generated during the 1989 wind tunnel test
revealed that RMS control-surface activity predicted by simulation was much
higher than those experienced in the wind tunnel. By subsequently making
turbulence intensities a function of dynamic pressure, researchers were able to
bring simulation-predicted RMS levels into agreement with observed data.24
The flight control configuration used on the AFW model served as the basis
for further developments. In July 1990, Rockwell engineer Jan Tulinius submitted a patent application for an AFW aircraft control system that featured flexible
wings with attached leading- and trailing-edge control surfaces, sensors to measure selected aircraft flight parameters, a system that received and processed pilot
command inputs and signals from the sensors, and mechanisms to control the
wings in response to processed data. AFW system capabilities included improved
aircraft stability and control, optimized cruise and maneuvering performance, as
well as augmentation for maneuver load control, gust load alleviation, and flutter
suppression. The patent was approved on January 21, 1992.25
23. Ibid.
24. Buttrill and Houck, Hot-Bench Simulation of the Active Flexible Wing Wind-Tunnel Model.
25. Jan Tulinius, Active Flexible Wing Aircraft Control System, United States Patent 5,082,207,
January 21, 1992.
10
11
the limitations of aeroelastic wind tunnel models comes from the structural
scaling required to get the desired flexibility, he noted.This precludes examining the AAW technology with the wings loaded as in maneuvering flight.We
needed to demonstrate it in full scale, full Reynolds Number, with positive-g
air loads, actual Mach effects, real flight dynamic pressures, etc.Only with
full-scale aircraft flight-testing could we gain all those para-meters in correct
scale simultaneously.29
Initial proposals defined several requirements for the test bed airplane.
It had to have both subsonic and supersonic flight capability. It would need
to be equipped with a wing having a minimum of two leading-edge and
two trailing-edge control surfaces. The airplanes wing geometry and elastic
characteristics had to exhibit trailing-edge roll control reversal. Finally, the
airplane had to have provisions for carriage and launch of external stores.
The stores carriage provision was eventually deleted, and the capability to
fly beyond trailing-edge control reversal was cancelled after early flight tests
indicated that this requirement could not be met. To reduce program costs,
researchers primarily looked at existing lightweight fighters and research
aircraft as test bed candidates.30
As researchers moved closer to full-scale flight demonstration, the term Active
Flexible Wing was changed to Active Aeroelastic Wing in order to counter the
misperception that flexible was synonymous with wimpy (i.e., lack of structural strength).31 In one of the earliest informal studies, a Rockwell design study
explored the suitability of using one of the companys two X-31 supersonic
research aircraft as an AAW technology demonstrator, but this approach was
abandoned following the crash of an X-31 at Edwards in January 1995. The airplane was completing its final flight in the joint U.S.-German Enhanced Fighter
Maneuverability program, and it would have been available for the AAW project.
The second X-31 was already committed to the Navys VECTOR project.32
Subsequently, Rockwell participated in two AAW test bed studies contracted
by AFWL in 1995. The objective of the first, led by Lockheed Martin, was to
29. Kenneth Griffin, personal communication to author, November 14, 2012.
30. Robert Clarke, Michael J. Allen, Ryan P. Dibley, Joseph Gera, and John Hodgkinson, Flight Test
of the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic Wing Airplane, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, NASA
TM-2005-213664 (August 2005).
31. Ed Pendleton, personal communication to author, November 14, 2012.
32. Bob Anderson, Eric Reichenbach, Ron Hess, Ken Griffin, Pete Flick, Dana Purifoy, Denis Bessette,
Larry Myers, Dave Voracek, John Baca, Marty Brenner, Bill Lokos, Jim Guffey, Dave Riley, and
Ed Pendleton, Summary of Lessons Learned from the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research
Program, draft copy, May 2005.
12
The X-31 was an early candidate for use in the AAW flight research program, but this plan was
abandoned following the loss of the only available airframe. (NASA)
assess potential goals, costs, and benefits of an AAW flight demonstration using
a modified F-16. Researchers at NASA Dryden were invited to participate, as
well. Dryden acquired an F-16A from NASA Langley, and Lockheed Martin
officials wrote a statement of work defining the requirements for converting the airframe into an AAW demonstrator, with an option for additional
flight control system (FCS) control modes for follow-on flight research. Plans
called for replacing the wing skins with thinner-gauge material for increased
flexibility and adding outboard ailerons and independent outboard/inboard
leading-edge flaps.33
Researchers proposed upgrading the demonstration aircraft to include a
Development Block 40 digital flight control computer with a Flight Control
Expansion Box to handle additional input/output signals. Improvements to
the airplanes operational flight program software would allow the test bed to
be flown to desired test conditions using conventional F-16 control laws. The
33. Lockheed Martin, LMTAS Statement of Work for F-16 Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight
Demonstration Program, Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, Fort Worth, TX, 1995,
provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
13
Researchers proposed modifying an F-16A for AAW flight research with the addition of outboard
control surfaces on the leading and trailing edges of the wing. (NASA)
pilot would then activate the AAW control laws through a panel that allowed
manual adjustments to gains.34
The team estimated that the project would entail approximately 12 months
of detailed design work, 18 months of manufacturing (not including long-lead
items), 6 months for ground tests and instrumentation, 12 months of flighttesting, and 6 months for drafting final reports. It was suggested that Lockheed
Martins Tactical Aircraft Systems division in Fort Worth, TX, would assume
responsibility for all aircraft modification activities and fabrication of structural
components. Rockwell provided consultation on the design concept, aerodynamic modeling, and control law synthesis, and it served as lead for loads model
development. NASA Dryden was designated the responsible test organization
(RTO) with support from the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC).35
The feasibility study showed the viability of improving roll performance by
adding outboard leading-edge control surfaces to the F-16 and reducing wing
stiffness to improve the airplanes suitability for achieving aileron reversal. The
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
14
Another F-16 AAW concept called for the use of an extended-chord aileron and reduced thickness of the skin panels covering the outer wing box. (NASA)
15
with fewer and stiffer panels, and by thickening the wing spar. Additionally,
the aileron was lengthened and the trailing-edge flap was made to operate as a
roll effector. Flight-testing indicated that Roll Mod 1 provided only a moderate
improvement in roll performance.37
A new set of control laws, known as Roll Mod 2, greatly improved roll
power by employing the leading-edge flaps as low-actuation-rate roll effectors
during high-speed flight. Some members of the F-18 design team initially
rejected this idea because leading-edge control surfaces are considered poor
control effectors on stiff or nearly rigid wings. On a relatively flexible wing,
use of leading-edge control surfaces at high speeds results in twisting of the
entire wing, which produces large roll control forces. It was this characteristic
that led researchers to consider the preproduction F-18 wing configuration an
ideal tool for demonstrating the AAW concept.38
The McDonnell Douglas study considered modifying a NASA F-18 previously used for the High-Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) program because it
was a preproduction prototype with the original wing configuration. As with
the F-16 proposal, the Air Force Research Laboratorys Air Vehicles Directorate
(formerly AFWAL) would lead the design of the experiment via the aircraft
modification effort. NASA Dryden would conduct the flight research program.
NASA Langley, AFFTC, and the Naval Weapons Development Center would
provide additional support to varying degrees. McDonnell Douglas would
modify the aircraft. As subcontractors, Boeing North American (formerly
Rockwell) would develop control laws, Moog would develop actuators, and
Lockheed Sanders would make changes to the F-18 flight control computer.
McDonnell Douglas would develop the flight qualified AFW controller and
support Drydens work with air vehicle systems, simulation, and testing.39
The aircraft used for HARV was the sixth preproduction F-18 airframe
off the assembly line. It had flexible high-aspect-ratio wings equipped with
multiple independent leading- and trailing-edge control surfaces that allowed
implementation of AAW control laws without too many structural or control
system hardware modifications. The HARV aircraft was also a good candidate
for the project because it was already equipped with a research flight control
37. Eric Reichenbach, Explanation of AAW Wing Torsional Stiffness Test Results and Impact on
Achieving AAW Flight Research Objectives, November 2001, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA
Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
38. Ibid.
39. M.J. McKay, Memo, Active Flexible Wing Technology Flight Test Demonstration Proposal
94-1028, Rockwell International, North American Aircraft Division, February 25, 1994, provided
by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
16
The F-18 High-Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) was suggested as a test bed candidate because
it was a preproduction airframe with the original wing configuration and was already equipped
with a research flight control system. (NASA)
system (RFCS) overlaid with the basic FCS. This allowed for safe testing of
new flight research control laws without the need to develop new control
laws for takeoff, landing, and basic flight maneuvers. The ability to switch
back to the basic FCS from the RFCS provided additional safety. Researchers
at Dryden had a great deal of experience with flying the HARV aircraft as
well as access to existing facilities for validating control laws and testing the
aircrafts systems.40
The F-18 AAW feasibility study demonstrated the viability of adding an
actuation system to a standard F-18 to independently drive the leading- and
trailing-edge control surfaces. Engineers noted that the existing control-surface
arrangement met all AAW requirements with relatively minor modifications.
Wing structures manufactured for the preproduction F-18 prototypes had
40. S.L. White, Active Flexible Wing Technology Demonstration: A Proposal in Response to NASA
Research Announcement NRA-94-0A-02Advanced Concepts for Aeronautics, Rockwell
International, North American Aircraft Division, February 25, 1994, provided by Dave Voracek,
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
17
This graph compares the flexibility of the HARV wing to that of the planned AAW wing
configuration, including the effect of removing the aft box upper cover (ABUC) panel. (NASA)
41. Anderson et al., Summary of Lessons Learned from the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research
Program.
42. Ibid.
43. Denis E. Bessette, Memo re: Assignment of Dryden Aircraft to the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW)
Program, n.d., circa 1995, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center,
from personal files.
18
Aircraft Modifications
The joint flight research effort among Air Force, NASA, Navy, and industry participants to demonstrate key characteristics of AAW technology was
officially initiated in January 1996. As had been proposed, NASA Dryden
hosted the flight-test program and also provided the test bed, NASA 840, the
preproduction F-18 (Navy Bu. No. 160780) that had previously been used
for the HARV project. The aircraft first had to be demodified from the HARV
configuration. This meant removal of thrust-vectoring vanes from the engine
exhaust, ballast weights, and a spin chute fixture that had been used during
high-angle-of-attack research flights. The original engine exhaust nozzles would
need to be reinstalled, along with a hardware box to allow the RFCS to operate
without the thrust-vectoring vanes. Technicians at Dryden planned to install
strain gauges for bending and torsion moments. These would be calibrated by
loading the wings to simulate specific flight loads for various flight conditions.44
In August 1996, following a competitive award process, the Air Vehicles
Directorate and NASA Dryden awarded a contract to McDonnell Douglas for
modification of the F-18 aircraft to make it suitable as an AAW demonstrator.
NASA maintained an existing F-18 support contract with McDonnell Douglas
to support changes needed to support flight-test operations at Dryden. The
$15 million Air Force contract included modifying the wing to preproduction
stiffness levels, adding trailing-edge outboard control-surface actuation, developing AAW control laws at Boeing North American, autocoding of control
laws, and making changes to the flight control computer. The original F-18
wing structure included three skin panels on both the upper and lower surfaces
inboard of the wing fold.45 The outboard portion of the wing had one upper
surface panel and two lower surface panels. The skin panels were constructed of
aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber composite materials. On the modified
wing, the three upper surface panels on the inboard section were replaced with
five panels made of aluminum and thinner composite skins with honeycomb
substructure. On the outboard portion of the wing, the single composite upper
surface panel was replaced with two thinner aluminum panels and one thinner
composite skin panel. The NASA support contract provided money maintaining F-18 airworthiness, developing software for verification and validation of
44. S.L. White, Active Flexible Wing Technology Demonstration: A Proposal in Response to NASA
Research Announcement NRA-94-0A-02 Advanced concepts for Aeronautics.
45. As on many Navy airplanes, the wings of the F-18 were equipped with a hinge that allowed them
to be folded when the aircraft was parked so that the aircraft took up less space on the deck or
hangar areas of an aircraft carrier.
19
In order to increase the flexibility of the AAW wings, large skin panels from the original configuration were replaced with several smaller panels. (NASA)
46. Ed Pendleton, Dave Voracek, Eric Reichenbach, and Kenneth Griffin, The X-53: A Summary
of the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research Program, AIAA-2007-1855, 48th AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii,
April 2007.
20
Researchers ultimately selected a production F-18 for modification as the AAW flight research
test bed. (NASA)
21
flaps independently. The test bed was also equipped with new flight control
computer hardware and software and a research instrumentation system to
monitor aircraft dynamics and loads.49
Special instrumentation was required for gathering data on aeroelastic
effects. Lead avionics technician Jim Mills, along with Dallas Quantz, Mark
Nicholson, and several Air Force technicians, pulled all the panels off the aircraft and installed approximately 400 sensors, producing a wire bundle 3 inches
thick. They also sought assistance from the aerodynamicists in determining
weight and size restrictions and placement of sensors and wires. Lead AAW
instrumentation engineer Joe Hernandez and his group reviewed requests from
various project teams before deciding where to place the numerous sensors and
miles of wire. Not every request could be accommodated.50
You can have requests for 20,000 parameters, but theres not enough real
estate on the aircraft, Hernandez said in a 2003 interview. We let them know
what they can have and what they cant.51
The final instrumentation package measured more than 1,600 independent
parameters during ground and flight tests. Technicians installed 200 strain
gages to monitor control-surface hinge moments and wing root/fold loads.
Wing displacement and twist were measured with 16 deflection sensors, and
there were 50 dynamic accelerometers that enabled flutter testing and structural dynamics research. Each control surface was equipped with two position
sensors in addition to those normally included on the aircraft. This allowed
engineers to track spanwise elastic warping of the control surfaces. The instrumentation package also included sensors to monitor temperatures and FCC
commands, as well as accelerometers to measure roll, pitch, and yaw. Aircraft
health-monitoring functions were executed by the mission computer, and a
set of pressure taps behind the outboard leading-edge flap collected unsteady
pressure measurements.52
Use of the leading-edge flaps as maneuvering control surfaces necessitated development of improved control actuators. The leading-edge flap drive
system (LEFDS) on the production F-18 aircraft controls both the inboard
49. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
50. Jay Levine, Key Roles: AAW taps into Drydens knowledge, experience and flight research
savvy, X-Press, Special Active Aeroelastic Wing Edition, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
(December 17, 2003): p. 2.
51. Ibid., p. 2.
52. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
22
From left to right, technicians Bob Fleckenstein, Andre Sentif, and Mark Nicholson work with
crew chief Daryl Townsend (lower right) to install instrumentation on AAW wing. (Jim Mills)
and outboard leading-edge flaps as a single unit. AAW project engineers at the
Phantom Works and technicians at Moog Aircraft Group in Torrance, CA,
modified the LEFDS to enable the inboard and outboard leading-edge control
surfaces to deflect independently of one another and modified the controlsurface travel limits.53
Technicians at Dryden removed the wings from NASA 840 and shipped
them to the Boeing Phantom Works in February 1999. There, the wing skins
were replaced with more flexible panels, and documented and undocumented
damage, such as composite delamination, wire chafing, elongated fastener
holes, and valve leakage, was repaired. Boeing technicians completed structural, hydraulic, and electrical modifications, but they were unable to install
the LEFDS because a complete system was not yet available. The remaining
work was subsequently finished at Dryden after the wings were returned to
NASA in March 2000.54
53. Ibid.
54. Field et al., The Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Program, the X-53Final
Report.
23
Sensors installed in the airplanes wings, fuselage, and tail surfaces recorded more than 1,600
parameters. (NASA)
This diagram compares the standard F-18 leading-edge flap drive system with the LEFDS used
for the X-53, indicating the necessary modifications. (Boeing)
24
25
Wing warping on the AAW F-18 was achieved through the use of leading- and trailing-edge
control surfaces to generate aerodynamic torque. (NASA)
This schematic illustrates the system architecture of the F-18 flight control computer. (NASA)
26
leading-edge flap. The RFCS communicated with the FCC through a dualport random access memory, and it had no direct control of the aircraft. Used
only during research portions of AAW flights, it provided a flexible system for
control law research. During test flights, the pilot selected a preprogrammed
maneuver from the cockpit display and then engaged the RFCS by pushing
a button on the control stick. When this system was engaged, actuator commands computed by the RFCS replaced commands from the baseline FCC.
When the RFCS disengaged, intentionally or through malfunction, transition
logic reverted flight control back to the baseline FCC.58
Several significant difficulties were encountered during FCC modification. First, Lockheed Martins original proposal called for adding between
50 and 60 jumper wires to the Analog 6 card in each channel of the FCC,
but the original HARV cards already had 50 such wires. As a result, the cost
estimate for modifying the cards increased. Although new Analog 6 cards
would have cost slightly more than modified cards, AAW program managers
decided it would be better to procure new ones rather than modify the HARV
cards. Interface wiring for the new outboard leading-edge-flap actuators was
installed on boards previously used for the HARV thrust-vectoring vane
actuators. Since the vanes had not been flight critical, they were not subject
to built-in test (BIT). But because the AAW leading-edge flaps were flight
critical and required continuous power-up BIT (PBIT), the FCC required
additional wiring changes to provide that capability. There were also concerns
that the 68040 chip would draw so much electric current that the FCC power
supply would not operate over the full range of input voltage. During discussions in the summer of 1998, program managers determined that, short of
a dual generator failure, there was very little risk that input voltage would
drop below operational levels.59
BAE Systems performed acceptance testing on the FCCs prior to delivery
of the ship sets. Beyond the standard F-18 FCC Acceptance Test Procedures,
this included vibration testing, environmental stress screening, and a manual
engineering test procedure to verify AAW-unique changes to the FCC. Testing
the parameter identification (PID) software with Ship Set No. 1 revealed a
memory problem that required returning the 68040 chip to BAE for reprogramming. Since it was considered a hardware failure, BAE sent the chip back
to the manufacturer for replacement of the failed unit. When BAE was ready
58. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
59. Field et al., The Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Program, the X-53Final
Report.
27
to reprogram the chip, the companys equipment was not available, so the chip
was sent to an outside vendor. Programming errors resulted in more apparent
failures, but the actual cause was not discovered until after the three original
68040 cards had been programmed with two minor errors that required patching. BAE provided the patch software, and Boeing installed it. The chips were
successfully debugged, but the entire process cost the program a month of extra
work. Further delays resulted from Navy requirements for qualification testing
of the 68040 chip that were more stringent than those used by NASA during
the F-15 ACTIVE program. This meant another 4-week delay in shipping the
FCCs to Boeing.60
Another problem cropped up when the Dryden team discovered that Ship
Set No. 2 would operate only when the ground service equipment (GSE)
power generator was turned on. After Boeing returned Ship Set No. 1 from
St. Louis, NASA verified that it worked properly and sent the other FCC
back to BAE for troubleshooting. BAE technicians were unable to determine
the nature of the problem until they examined both FCCs and found a disparity in the dual-port RAM processor registers. Minor frame overruns in
the 68040 processors caused Ship Set No. 2 to enter Fault Shutdown mode.
Oddly, although Ship Set No. 2 had the proper component, turning the GSE
on disabled the cache memory. Ship Set No. 1 had been equipped with the
wrong part, but the dual-port RAM timing was not an issue, and the FCC
worked. The two components were physically identical but had slightly different part numbers, a subtle difference that had been missed during quality assurance checks. In order to avoid further delays in the flight-testing
schedule, and since the PID software did not require cache memory, the
cache memory was disabled as a temporary solution. BAE waited until the
end of Phase 1 testing to implement a final solution that required a variety
of hardware and software changes.61
Several additional modifications were required in order to finish work on
the AAW test bed. First, it was equipped with an aluminum nose cone that had
been previously flown on the HARV aircraft because it was modified to support
a flight-test nose boom that provided more precise air data. Cockpit modifications included the addition of RFCS controls and an Air Forcetype oxygen
system interface to make the airplane compatible with the rest of Drydens
F-18 fleet. The electronics bay (E-Bay), just aft of the cockpit, was modified
to hold research instrumentation. Finally, a special fairing, designed by Tony
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
28
Strain gauges and other instrumentation measured component loads on the airplanes wings
and control surfaces. (NASA)
Chen and built at Dryden, was mounted on top of the upper fuselage spine to
house a flight-deflection measurement system (FDMS).62
Traditionally, flight-load measurement on aircraft structures has been done
using metallic-resistance strain gauges that are physically bonded along key
elements of the structural load paths. Applied loads cause structural members
to deform (strain), producing an electrical resistance charge in the gauge that
is proportional to the load. As an alternative to mechanical strain gauges,
researchers at NASA Langley investigated an optical technique for remotely
measuring the relationship between macroscopic deflection of the aircraft
structure and the corresponding flight loads. The AAW flight-test program provided a unique opportunity to demonstrate deflection-based load estimation
using data from the FDMS. Technicians installed 16 infrared light-emitting
diodes on the upper surface of the airplanes left wing to serve as targets for two
receivers inside the FDMS fairing. During Phase 1 flight testing, researchers
compared estimated loads based on deflection to measured loads based on
strain. They found a strong correlation in regard to bending moment, and a
slightly weaker torque correlation, because high toque loads are not always
62. Mauricio Rivas, Active Aeroelastic Wing Project Dryden Independent Review, Flight Operations
Engineering, briefing to AAW Flight Readiness Review Board, March 2002, provided by Dave
Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
29
30
The extensively instrumented F-18 airframe was subjected to torsional stiffness and vibration
testing in the Dryden Flight Loads Laboratory. The results were critical to the success of the
AAW flight research program. (NASA)
as part of the setup for a subsequent loads calibration test.66 The trunnions
were attached to steel H-beam assemblies and bolted to the floor. The nose
gear remained in place, attached to the floor with loose safety chains, and the
tailhook was replaced with a support fixture and secured to the floor with guy
cables. Loading fixtures were installed on the left wing and connected to four
loading columns. Data recording instrumentation included string potentiometers installed on the fuselage centerline between the engines, as well as on
both horizontal stabilizers and on both main landing gear trunnions for observation of rigid-body movement. The FDMS provided sensor measurements of
the left wing upper surface.67
66. Ibid.
67. Natalie Crawford, AAW Wing Torsional Stiffness Test Report with Preliminary Findings, NASA
AAW-2001-010 (April 2001), provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center,
from personal files.
31
This multiple exposure emphasizes the wing deflections produced by test fixtures in the FLL. (NASA)
Dave Neufeld (front left), Steve Thomas, and Mark Nunnelee (standing) control and monitor loads
testing of the AAW airplane. (NASA)
32
During torsional stiffness tests, two actuators applied loads in one direction while the other two applied loads in an equal, but opposite, direction.
FLL technicians increased loading in steps of 20 percent of the test limit load,
allowing ample time between steps for observation and data collection. The
first load measurements, made on April 10, 2001, were used for verification
of data displays and to check structural and dump responses using 20 percent
as the maximum load. Comparison of deflection data with baseline data from
the 1996 wing stiffness test showed that AAW wing deflections were considerably lower than expected. After engineers studied differences between the
two test configurations that might account for this, they decided to repeat
the torsional test with the leading-edge flaps unlocked and the dummy actuators disconnected. When testing resumed the following day, the change had
a significant effect, but one still less than expected. Technicians then removed
the aft wing box upper skin panel fasteners and performed another load cycle.
The subsequent deflection data were very similar to the results of panels-off
tests performed in 1996.68
Overall, these tests successfully quantified the AAW wings torsional stiffness
for the flight configuration and provided good comparative data between the
original production wing and the lighter, more flexible AAW wing. The FDMS
provided excellent data for correlating wing deflection and loads. Outstanding
teamwork among the aircraft crew, mechanics, and FLL technicians allowed for
rapid test setup and execution, saving 1 week of project schedule time.69 The
modified wing was found to be approximately 5 percent more flexible than the
baseline F-18 wing and had more torsional stiffness than was predicted using
the FEM. Engineers found that the analytical model overpredicted wingtip
flexibility by 42 percent and required adjustment using the new data. Once
adjusted, the FEM could be used for aeroelasticity predictions and control
law development.70
The next phase of testing (wing-load calibration) was designed to ensure
the development of accurate strain gaugebased load equations and address
applied-load design anomalies. There were four objectives. The primary objective was to obtain calibration data from strain gauge instrumentation during
the application of single-point and distributed loads. The resulting data served
as the basis for loads equations and as a research database for analytical strain
gauge calibration work. Second, researchers wished to simultaneously collect measurements from the electro-optical FDMS and ground-test deflection
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Lokos et al., Wing Torsional Stiffness Tests of the Active Aeroelastic Wing F/A-18 Airplane.
33
A series of tests in the FLL quantified the AAW wings torsional stiffness and provided comparative
data between the original production wing and the lighter, more flexible research wing. (NASA)
potentiometers for comparison of the two measurement systems. A third objective involved the collection of strain gauge data through both the airplanes
pulse code modulation (PCM) data system and the DACS3 data system used
in the FLL for signal-to-noise ratio and error analysis. Last, but not least, the
team collected overall aircraft wing stiffness data. The complete process was
scheduled to take 83 days.71
Wing-load calibration tests were made using a test fixture equipped with
32 hydraulic jacks that applied loads through 104 tension and compression
pads bonded to the wing surface. Dryden engineers developed load equations for wing root and fold shear, bending moment, torque, and leading-/
trailing-edge control-surface hinge moments. They performed 72 load cases
(single-point, double-point, and distributed) and compared loads calculated
from strain gauge outputs with aggregate applied loads. Load equations based
71. William A. Lokos, Test Plan for the F-18 AAW (TN853) Wing Strain Gage Loads Calibration Test,
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, March 2001.
34
FLL technicians conducted load calibration tests using a fixture equipped with 32 hydraulic jacks
that applied loads through 104 tension and compression pads bonded to the wing surface. (NASA)
on the results were later implemented in the control room and monitored in
real time during flight tests.72
Engineers had calculated the baseline stiffness using assumed values based
on a new wing with minimum wear-induced hysteresis. Because the wings
from the NASA 840 had experienced significant flight wear that resulted in
slippage between panels, fasteners, and substructure, the wing stiffness was
not reduced as much as expected. The overall measured stiffness of the AAW
wing was calculated to be approximately 5 percent less than that of the baseline F-18 wing with wear and approximately 17 percent less than that of the
baseline wing with no wear. The AAW team successfully achieved the goal of
returning the production airplanes wing to a stiffness level approaching that
of the preproduction model and giving it sufficient flexibility to demonstrate
AAW technology.73
72. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
73. Ibid.
35
36
Researchers monitor aeroservoelastic data in Drydens Structural Analysis Facility. From left
(seated): University of California San Diego graduate student Marianne Crowder, Roger Truax,
Natalie Crawford, and National Research Council postdoctoral student Chad Prazenica; standing:
lead structural engineer Marty Brenner and Structural Dynamics Group leader Chan-Gi Pak. (NASA)
37
38
Loads Lab technicians including, from left, Dave Dennis, Freddy Graham, and Jeff Doughty
position a support cylinder under the right wing of the AAW test aircraft prior to ground vibration
testing. (NASA)
During ground vibration tests, the upper wing surfaces were covered with accelerometers and
other sensors. The FDMS pod is visible atop the spine of the airplane above the wing. (NASA)
39
would not adversely affect the FCS. The results had several applications. First,
researchers used SMI data to calculate responses and transfer functions (a
mathematical representation of the relation between the input and output
of a linear time-invariant system) that defined the dynamic relationship of
the airframe and control-surface actuators. Second, they determined whether
dynamic coupling occurred between the airframe and the FCS sensors and
actuators. The final, and most important, objective was to ensure that all servoelastic gains met safety requirements. The SMI tests consisted of activating
the FCS and performing a series of six onboard excitation system (OBES)
maneuvers including a symmetric sweep of the ailerons, outboard leadingedge flaps, stabilators, and rudders. Additionally, the ailerons and outboard
leading-edge flaps were swept antisymmetrically. During these maneuvers, the
airframe was subjected to a combination of numerous sine wave signals of
varying frequency (known as Schroeder inputs) for 35 seconds. No adverse
interaction between the control system and aircraft structure was found, and
the SMI test successfully demonstrated that the AAW test bed had sufficient
gain margins for safe operation.78
40
A half-span model of the F-18 was tested in Langley Research Centers Transonic Dynamics
Tunnel to validate predictive methods and identify critical parameters for the flight research
program. (NASA)
stabilator mounted on an interior wall of the TDT test section. Because the
study called for static rather than dynamic aeroelastic tests, model designers
needed to consider only the ratio between stiffness and aerodynamic loads.
There was no need to duplicate the airplanes mass and inertia characteristics.
The TDT was configured to allow researchers to duplicate test points planned
for the full-scale flights by specifying desired combinations of Mach number
and dynamic pressure. The effects of inertial and gravitational loads on the
model were considered negligible.80
Researchers at Langley designed the model to match the stiffness distribution and load paths of the flight vehicle and to meet specified wind tunnel
model strength criteria. It was 14.11 feet long with a 5.19-foot span. The
wing incorporated a machined aluminum center plate with a balsa wood
aerodynamic fairing bonded to the upper and lower surfaces and contoured
to provide the proper airfoil shape. While fabricating the wing, the builders
used an iterative analysis and design process to match the structural stiffness
80. Ibid.
41
42
83. Ibid.
84. Heeg et al., Experimental Results from the Active Aeroelastic Wing Wind Tunnel Test Program.
43
used flight data collected during Phase 1 testing to refine control laws for the
Phase 2 flight-test series.85
The NASA team also employed MATLAB, a numerical computing environment and fourth-generation programming language that enables matrix
manipulations, data plotting, and implementation of algorithms. The AAW
software included a set of lateral-directional control laws to govern the airplanes roll mode and longitudinal flight control laws to control short-period
motion. Because the primary design objective was to maximize aircraft roll
control using only the wing, AAW control laws were programmed to command
all eight wing control surfaces to aeroelastically twist the wing into optimal
shapes for generating wing control power at high dynamic pressures.86
While designing the control laws, programmers at Boeing developed tools
and guidelines for application of AAW technology. In order to ensure pilot
safety, AAW flight control laws were designed to prevent the aircraft from
exceeding any structural load limits encountered during normal operations or
from creating adverse transients conditions during reversion to baseline flight
control laws. Roll authority was attained using only the wings and associated control surfaces. The horizontal stabilators provided no roll contribution
during AAW flight-test maneuvers.87
Baseline F-18 control laws were programmed to command the inboard and
outboard leading-edge flaps as though they composed a single surface. In the
RFCS mode, however, the surfaces acted independently. Researchers expected
the aileron and outboard leading-edge flap to have the most significant effect
on control of wing flexibility. Consequently, to exploit this characteristic, the
LEFDS was programmed to increase performance of the outboard leading-edge
flap through increased travel and rate. Increased actuator performance allowed
programmers greater flexibility for acquiring PID data during flight-testing
and for designing the AAW control laws.88
The AAW control laws resided within the 68040 coprocessor. They were
programmed in the Ada computer language and derived from the basic production F-18 controller architecture. The lateral axis control laws provided
85. Ryan P. Dibley, Michael J. Allen, Robert Clarke, Joseph Gera, and John Hodgkinson,
Development and Testing of Control Laws for the Active Aeroelastic Wing Program, NASA
Dryden Flight Research Center, NASA TM-2005-213666 (December 2005).
86. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
87. Ibid.
88. Field et al., The Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Program, the X-53Final
Report.
44
Mike Allen (left) and Thang Quatch use a simulator at Dryden to work on development of the
AAW control laws. (Jim Mills)
normal bank angle and roll control. Since one of the primary research goals was
to achieve roll control solely through wing surfaces, it was necessary for programmers to disestablish stabilator inputs. The longitudinal-axis control laws
provided short period damping and allowed the pilot to command load factor.
Directional control laws provided normal pilot control of the directional axis.89
89. Marty Brenner, William Lokos, John Carter, and David F. Voracek, Objectives and Requirements
DocumentActive Aeroelastic Wing (AAW), NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, AAW-840ORD-v1.0 (July 1998), provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from
personal files.
45
The AAW test bed flies formation with a production model F-18 serving as a chase plane. (NASA)
46
Chapter 2:
In order to ensure a safe and thorough flight evaluation program, the research
team divided F-18 AAW flight testing into two phases. The first consisted of
parameter identification (PID) maneuvers for model validation and the second
was devoted to control law development. The primary objective of Phase 1 testing was to acquire data for improved understanding of fundamental technical
issues important in the validation of AAW technology. These included aerodynamics, structural characteristics, and aircraft maneuvering performance.
During Phase 1, researchers developed a concept of operations for getting the
modified F-18 to planned supersonic test points. This presented a challenge;
the airplanes performance limitations prohibited level acceleration to the highest dynamic pressure test points, making it necessary to set up the desired
Mach number at a higher altitude and then diving to the desired altitude while
maintaining the Mach number. Project engineers also wanted to correlate wind
tunnel data and aerodynamic performance predictions with actual flight-test
data for improved simulation modeling. The aircraft was instrumented to measure roll, yaw, and pitch rates, as well as control inputs, surface deflections, and
control-surface frequency response.1
In the initial phase of flight testing, researchers planned to experimentally
characterize aircraft control effectiveness by using a software program that
sent actuator commands to the AAW test beds aerodynamic control surfaces.
Special software known as an onboard excitation system (OBES) was programmed to send 31 separate maneuvers to the RFCS. Six of these maneuvers
provided PID data for aeroelastic model validation. The other 25 consisted of
frequency sweeps in which aircraft control surfaces were individually deflected
so engineers could extract loads and validate aerodynamic control derivatives.
These latter maneuvers supported an investigation of aeroservoelastic effects,
as well as leading-edge-flap maneuvers and failure simulations. Researchers
1. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
47
The first phase of flight research consisted of aircraft checkout and parameter identification
maneuvers made to improve the understanding of fundamental technical issues necessary to
validate AAW technology. (NASA)
used the OBES maneuvers to create a new aerodynamic model for the modified F-18.2
For safety reasons, the control laws imposed a restricted flight envelope for
each OBES maneuver. This limited normal and lateral acceleration, pitch and
yaw rates, and roll rate to levels that would prevent accidental overstressing
of the aircrafts structure. As a result, no OBES maneuvers could be flown
at two of the supersonic test points because they were outside the airplanes
performance envelope. Researchers had, in fact, expected these test points to
be outside the normal level-flight performance envelope, but they had hoped
to achieve them in a shallow dive.3
Using a buildup approach, the AAW research pilot performed Integrated
Test Block (ITB) maneuvers at each test point. These consisted of aeroservoelastic OBES maneuvers, aerodynamic and loads model OBES doublets, 5-g
windup turns (WUTs), bank-to-bank and 360-degree rolls up to full lateral
2. Corey G. Diebler and Stephen B. Cumming, Active Aeroelastic Wing Aerodynamic Model
Development and Validation for a Modified F/A-18A Airplane, NASA TM-2005-213668
(November 2005).
3. Clarke, Allen, Dibley, Gera, and Hodgkinson, Flight Test of the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic Wing
Airplane.
48
stick inputs (limited by loads), and 4-g rolling pullouts (RPOs). Push-overpull-up (POPU) maneuvers were included for the purposes of air data calibration but were not part of the ITB. The pilot executed a POPU by pushing
forward on the stick to enter a 1-g dive and then pulling back to 3 gs. An
RPO required banking the airplane, pulling back on the stick to maintain a
level 4-g turn, then quickly rolling the airplane 180 degrees in the opposite
direction while maintaining a constant longitudinal stick position. For a WUT,
the pilot banked the aircraft and pulled back on the stick, increasing acceleration while maintaining constant altitude. These maneuvers, flown using the
standard F-18 control laws, provided data used to validate the new aerodynamic model. Initially, researchers planned to use only the OBES maneuvers
during model development, but they discovered that analytical results did
not produce a wide enough range of data. They alleviated the problem by
using the POPU, RPO, and WUT data in conjunction with the OBES data
in order to expand the angle-of-attack and normal acceleration ranges used
in the analysis. This approach effectively eliminated discrepancies previously
seen in high-g maneuvers.4
The aircraft was instrumented to measure time-dependent aeroelastic
wing twist and bending responses as well as associated strain fields caused
by aerodynamic and control forces and high-g maneuvers. Researchers also
measured aircraft maneuvering response in terms of roll, yaw, and pitch rates.
Measurement of control inputs, surface deflections, flight loads, and controlsurface frequency response provided additional data for simulation and modeling refinement. Phase 1 flight data also provided information for evaluating
control-surface effectiveness for roll control and to help researchers understand
under what conditions aileron reversal occurs. Understanding all of these data
were critical to designers seeking to incorporate AAW technology into flight
control systems for future aircraft.5
A total of 50 Phase 1 flights plus one follow-on sortie were made between
November 15, 2002, and June 25, 2003. These flights verified FCC software
functions and the capability of the baseline F-18 control laws to fly the aircraft. Research goals accomplished included loads verification, aeroservoelastic
(ASE) envelope clearance, air data calibration, PID flights, and ITB maneuvers. Engineers used ASE modeling (which takes into account structures,
4. Ibid.
5. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
49
Flightcrew
Dana Purifoy and Dick Ewers served as project pilots. A former Air Force
test pilot, Purifoy had previously served as a project pilot in the two joint
NASAAir Force programs at Dryden: the X-29 Forward Swept Wing and
the Advanced Fighter Technology Integration F-16. After retiring from the
Air Force, he returned to Dryden as a NASA research pilot in August 1994.
6. Levine, Key Roles: AAW taps into Drydens knowledge, experience and flight research savvy.
7. Alan Brown, AAW makes first flight, The X-Press 44, no. 4, NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center (November 2002): p. 16.
8. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
9. Diebler and Cumming, Active Aeroelastic Wing Aerodynamic Model Development and Validation
for a Modified F/A-18A Airplane.
50
During the next 11 years, he flew the NF-15B Advanced Control Technology
for Integrated Vehicles test bed, F-18 Systems Research Aircraft, F-15B aeronautics research test bed, and the F-16XL Supersonic Laminar Flow Control
experiment. He also piloted the NB-52B mother ship during launches of the
X-38 prototype crew return vehicle and X-43A hypersonic scramjet vehicles,
conducted Space Shuttle tire tests with a modified Convair 990, and worked
on the X-36 tailless fighter agility project before being assigned as project pilot
for the F-18 AAW.10
Ewers came to Dryden as a research pilot in May 1998 and flew airborne
science missions in Learjet and DC-8 flying laboratories, as well as research
and support missions in the F-18, King Air, and NB-52B. He had previously
spent more than 8 years as an engineering test pilot with Northrop Grummans
Electronic Sensors and Systems Division (formerly Westinghouses Electronic
Systems Group), where he flight-tested emerging radar and forward-looking
infrared systems under development for military and civilian use. Before joining Westinghouse, Ewers served more than 21 years in the Marine Corps as a
fighter and test pilot. His military flying included combat service in Vietnam
and operational exchange tours with both Navy and Air Force squadrons
flying F-4s around the world, including launches from and landings on aircraft
10. Dana D. Purifoy, research pilot biography, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.
nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Pilots/bd-dfrc-p013.html, September 2010,
accessed July 20, 2012.
51
carriers.11 He was also one of the original pilots involved in testing the preproduction F-18, primarily flying loads demonstrations. The early F-18 had
a serious problem with the wings, he recalled. They were so flexible that the
aileron essentially acted as a trim tab, twisting the wing and reducing control
power. Stiffening the wings of the production airframes solved that problem,
but for the AAW program we came full circle by making the wings more flexible again. It was neat because we showed that leading edge devices could be
used to produce roll power.12
11. Richard G. Ewers, research pilot biography, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.
nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Pilots/bd-dfrc-p025.html, February 2012, accessed
July 20, 2012.
12. Richard G. Ewers, personal communication to author, December 14, 2012.
13. Leslie Welch, Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Test Report: Aircraft Functional Ground Check,
August 2002, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files.
52
The AAW test bed takes off on its maiden flight. (NASA)
Purifoy recovered easily and was able to repeat the maneuver.14 The AAW team
was extremely happy with the results. This first flight milestone is one weve
been waiting for, Boeing Phantom Works President Bob Krieger said, and
its only the beginning of a new chapter in the combination of aerodynamics,
structures, and flight controls into a single integrated system.15
This is the beginning of the twenty-first century aircraft, said Denis
Bessette, where morphing technology will create wings that bend and shape
themselves for aircraft control and efficient flight from low to high speeds,
and from low to high altitudes. Were expecting very productive research.16
14. David Voracek, Ed Pendleton, Eric Reichenbach, Kenneth Griffin, and Leslie Welch, The Active
Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research Program: Summary of Technical Program and Phase 1 Flight
Research, presented at the RTO AVT Symposium on Novel Vehicle Concepts and Emerging
Vehicle Technologies, Brussels, Belgium, April 710, 2003.
15. Brown, AAW makes first flight, p. 16.
16. Ibid., p. 1.
53
Test maneuvers included banks and rolls at various stick deflections to evaluate the airplanes
handling qualities and interaction between the wing and the control system. (NASA)
Envelope Expansion
Purifoy and Ewers took turns flying the airplane as they pressed on with the
Block 1 flights. The next four sorties included aeroservoelastic envelope expansion, flutter clearance, and comparison of aircraft flying qualities using both
the standard F-18 flight controls and the RFCS. Maneuvers in 18 individual
test points included bank-to-bank rolls at various stick deflections, 360-degree
rolls, and rolling pullouts to evaluate the airplanes handling qualities and interaction between the wing and the control system. Flutter clearance maneuvers
consisted of test points with increasing dynamic pressures.17 The last two Block
1 flights included an integrated FCF and a symmetric loads investigation.
Each sortie increased the subsonic speed envelope in incremental steps from
485 knots (Mach 0.91) to 595 knots (Mach 0.98). Block 1 was completed on
November 26, 2002.18
17. Voracek, Pendleton, Reichenbach, Griffin, and Welch, The Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight
Research Program: Summary of Technical Program and Phase 1 Flight Research.
18. Leslie M. Welch, Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight Report: Flights 1-5,
NASA, November 2002, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from
personal files.
54
The goal of Block 2 was to calibrate the pitot-static and flow-angle measurement systems and quantify errors so the airplanes instruments would accurately
measure velocity, Mach number, angle of attack, and sideslip. On December
10, each pilot flew one hour-long sortie to perform air data calibration maneuvers. Ewers reported that during acceleration to Mach 0.97, the altimeter
wound off a couple of hundred feet, indicating an altitude error.19 During
repositioning turns throughout the flight, the airplane hovered around the
45-degree angle of bank (AOB) limit, sometimes reaching up to 48 degrees
AOB. Purifoy completed the air data calibration maneuvers, with some repeats.
He also noted an altimeter jump at Mach 0.97 during acceleration.20 With
indicated altitude errors of up to several thousand feet in the transonic region,
the AAW pilots had to fly the indicated Mach number while relying on GPS
data to maintain desired altitude.21
Block 3 flight testing began on December 20 with more outboard leadingedge-flap-failure emulations and PID maneuvers at subsonic test conditions.
The PID data were critical to the success of the AAW program because they
were needed to update the existing aerodynamic database and improve the
loads database, both vital to control law design.22 Both pilots reported that
the aircraft was responsive and easily controllable. Roll power was smooth at
around 7.5 degrees AOA, but there was slight buffeting at about 8.1 degrees.
After one flight, Purifoy suggested the pilots might need a few minutes between
rolls and noted that some test points were difficult and unrepeatable, and that
the aileron may have been stalling during some maneuvers.23
Often flying two or three sorties in a single day, Purifoy and Ewers continued to gather PID data from OBES maneuvers, integrated test blocks, and
loads buildup maneuvers within the subsonic flight envelope. They performed
some rolling maneuvers for comparison with earlier tests that had been made
in Drydens F-18 Systems Research Aircraft (SRA). In 1999, a series of SRA
19. Leslie M. Welch, Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight Report: Flights 67,
NASA, December 2002, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from
personal files, p. 5.
20. Ibid., p. 6.
21. Clarke, Allen, Dibley, Gera, and Hodgkinson, Flight Test of the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic Wing
Airplane.
22. Voracek, Pendleton, Reichenbach, Griffin, and Welch, The Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight
Research Program: Summary of Technical Program and Phase 1 Flight Research.
23. Leslie M. Welch, Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight Report: Flights
811, NASA, January 2003, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center,
from personal files, p. 6.
55
The AAW test bed flies upside down during a 360-degree aileron roll maneuver. (NASA)
tests had served as a precursor to the AAW flights for the purpose of collecting
baseline data. For these tests, NASA technicians equipped the SRA, which had
standard production F-18 wings and control surfaces, with RFCS and OBES
software nearly identical to that later used on the AAW test bed, and the SRA
pilot flew OBES maneuvers at each of the AAW planned test points.24
AAW researchers made several surprising discoveries during Phase 1 testing.
First, they found that aileron hinge-moment loads frequently prevented testing
full lateral-stick inputs during 1-g and elevated-g roll maneuvers in standard F-18
FCS mode. This was problematic because these maneuvers had been designed
to produce baseline data for comparison with Phase 2 roll performance results,
and the aileron hinge-moment problem subsequently drove development of the
Phase 2 FCS software. Another surprise came when engineers noted that the
aileron was subject to structural deformation at high dynamic pressures. This
was due, at least in part, to the location of the aileron actuator at the far inboard
edge of the control surface; the outboard edge was attached via a free hinge.
The final surprise was that the control laws required much larger wing controlsurface deflections to achieve adequate roll control than had been expected. In
hindsight, researchers noted, the OBES maneuvers should have exercised the
leading-edge control surfaces over larger ranges to reduce the extrapolation used
24. Diebler and Cumming, Active Aeroelastic Wing Aerodynamic Model Development and Validation
for a Modified F/A-18A Airplane.
56
25. Clarke, Allen, Dibley, Gera, and Hodgkinson, Flight Test of the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic Wing
Airplane, pp. 1415.
26. Leslie M. Welch, Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight Report: Flights 1725, NASA,
March 2003, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files, p. 5.
27. Jay Levine and Sarah Merlin, Phase One: First flights set the stage for advances in AAW
technology, The X-Press: Special Active Aeroelastic Wing Edition, NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center (December 17, 2003): p. 3.
28. Alan Brown, AAW notes from video interview, January 12, 2004, from NASA Dryden Public
Affairs files provided by Alan Brown.
29. Levine and Merlin, Phase One: First flights set the stage for advances in AAW technology, p. 3.
57
The modified F-18 maneuvers through a test point during the second phase of flight research. (NASA)
58
Chapter 3:
Nearly 6 weeks after the nominal completion of Phase 1, Dana Purifoy flew
a follow-on AAW research flight to address a few items that had not been
covered during the initial tests. At this time, the airplane underwent inspections, maintenance, and installation of additional flight-test instrumentation.
It was also prepared for static display at several air shows scheduled to take
place throughout the Midwest that summer in connection with nationwide
Centennial of Flight celebrations. These included the Dayton International
Air Show at Dayton, OH; the Grissom Air Reserve Base air show at Kokomo,
IN.; and the Experimental Aircraft Associations Air Venture 2003 at Oshkosh,
WI.; as well as a fly-by of the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, CO, and
stopovers at Whiteman Air Force Base, MO, Salina, KS, and Grand Junction,
CO. Ewers and Purifoy shared flying duties during a series of eight crosscountry legs spread over nearly 3 weeks.1
By mid-December 2004, the new software was installed and the program
was ready to proceed to the second phase of flight testing. Phase 2 consisted of
34 AAW control law development flights plus 1 follow-on sortie. The primary
goal was to evaluate the ability of the research flight control system software
to effectively drive the AAW control surfaces for roll control at transonic and
supersonic speeds. Planners helped reduce design and testing costs by treating each of the test points as a separate design point. Instead of developing
a full envelope control law, programmers reduced the problem to 18 distinct
design test points without interpolation between points. Each one had its own
static and impact pressure envelope based on Phase 1 test data. Programmers
designed control laws for each test point using the true conditions that represented the center of all of the OBES doublet maneuvers performed at that
condition. The Phase 2 RFCS had the same arming and disengage envelopes
as had been required for the Phase 1 maneuvers. Because the gains were locked
after the system was armed and engaged, it was not required that the disengage
envelope be distinct. Overlap with other test envelopes allowed the limits on
1. Alan Brown, AAW wraps up first phase, The X-Press 45, no. 4, NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center (June 27, 2003): p. 11.
59
The second phase of flight testing evaluated the ability of the RFCS software to effectively drive
AAW control surfaces for roll control at transonic and supersonic speeds. (NASA)
60
satisfying all other requirements as explicit constraints. ISMD results necessitated a postdesign analysis of other requirements and some additional redesign
efforts. Overall, the Boeing control law architecture was essentially the same
as that used during the TDT model tests.3
For the purposes of the demonstration program, the AAW control laws
had to be compatible with existing F-18 control laws while accounting for the
quasi-steady nature of ISMD-recommended gains. The ISMD-recommended
differential and collective gains were developed from sets of trimmed roll rates,
roll accelerations, normal accelerations, and pitch accelerations. Since aircraft
sensors did not provide pitch and roll accelerations, programmers developed
pseudo accelerations using command-versus-feedback errors. The directional
control law architecture was the same as that used on the baseline F-18 control
system except that the rolling-surface-to-rudder interconnect was replaced with
a roll-rate feedback path. Because the test bed aircraft was to rely solely on wing
control surfaces for rolling power, control laws for the differential stabilator
(rolling tail) were not included.4
NASA and Boeing engineers disagreed on which aerodynamic database
should serve as the basis for AAW control law development. NASA engineers
advocated for using the AAW database developed from Phase 1 PID data. The
Boeing team preferred the most recent production F-18 aerodynamic database,
modified by aeroelastic analyses. In the interest of moving forward while assuring flight safety, both parties agreed that the AAW control laws had to be flyable
on both simulations until the issue was resolved. This resulted in the development of nine point designs based on the NASA aerodynamic data, eight point
designs based on the Boeing data, and one compromise point design, all of which
were then programmed into the RFCS software. Changing from the original 18
Boeing test points to the 9-8-1 balance necessitated a great deal of care to ensure
that code changes were performed properly and gains correctly loaded.5
In Phase 2, AAW project engineers correlated flight-test results with ISMD
predictions with regard to roll rate and structural loading. The ISMD method,
pioneered by Rockwell during the early AFW studies, enables simultaneous
design of control laws and aircraft structures. It may be used to determine
optimized control-surface deflections to minimize an objective function (such
as internal loads or aerodynamic drag) while simultaneously achieving desired
performance for a set of aircraft state-design variables. Although the ISMD
3. Ibid., p. 16.
4. Field et al., The Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Program, the X-53Final
Report, p. 218.
5. Ibid., p. 268.
61
AAW Flight-Testing
Initial plans for Phase 2 flight-testing called for flying the Boeing-designed test
points and then checking the compromise flight-test condition. Data collected
during rolling maneuvers would be used to verify the accuracy of the NASA
aerodynamic database developed during Phase 1. The compromise gain set, to be
flown at Mach 1.2 and 20,000 feet, served as a test case for the two aerodynamic
databases developed by NASA and Boeing. The planned test conditions included
a trailing-edge-flap setting that NASA engineers predicted would result in an
undesirable amount of sideslip. The Boeing simulation, however, predicted that
this gain set would produce acceptable levels of sideslip during rolling maneuvers
up to 360 degrees. The compromise test point (known as Test Point #14) would
indicate which aerodynamic database was more accurate.8
Testing began with two flights by Dana Purifoy on December 14, 2004.
The first was a functional check followed by subsonic deflection data maneuvers at 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. The second sortie marked the beginning
of the AAW control law development flights. Purifoy spent just over an hour
performing RFCS reversion checks, aeroservoelastic data maneuvers, windup
turns, and roll buildup maneuvers.9
62
This graph illustrates the test points used to evaluate AAW control laws. (NASA)
Two more data flights were made the following day, but a postflight inspection revealed a hydraulic leak on the right main landing gear. Following several
weeks of repairs, inspections, and a holiday break, flying resumed on January
5, 2005. The following day, Purifoy flew a roll buildup on Test Point #14,
stopping at 60 percent stick when he noticed an indication of 2.1 degrees of
sideslip. During a postflight debriefing, he commented that at Test Point #14,
the aircraft demonstrated good lateral response and no longitudinal coupling.
He noted that although he felt the sideslip, it was not out of the ordinary for
high roll rates. On his next flight, he continued with the Test Point #14 roll
buildup. He experienced no adverse handling issues, but observed that rolling
with 75 percent stick input produced 3.6 degrees of sideslip and 98 percent
load on the right aileron.10
As new control law sets were tested during the roll buildup, engineers monitored eight structural component loads for each wing against corresponding load
limits. Any change to the flight control laws altered the way the aircraft generated
loads, and researchers found that some control law sets encountered load limits
more quickly than others. For each set of control laws, a point-to-point incremental loads clearance process had to be carried out to ensure that load limits
were not exceeded. This challenging process required extraordinary teamwork
between the research pilot and the engineers monitoring the load values from the
control room. As the aircraft approached structural limits, the pilot was required
to make very precise lateral control stick inputs, sometimes by increments of
10. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
63
Typical roll control effectiveness of the AAW test bed is shown here as a function of dynamic
pressure. (NASA)
only a few percent of the full range of motion. In order to accomplish this task,
technicians installed a helpful, if unusual, research tool in the cockpit. It was
affectionately referred to as the dirty shoestring and consisted of a short length
of cord, attached with Velcro, running laterally across the cockpit just above
the pilots knees. Ink marks along its length represented incremental control
stick positions, providing the pilot with a crucial visual reference. According to
NASA engineer William Lokos, It had to be re-zeroed for each flight prior to
takeoff, by adjusting the string laterally after comparing the pilots visual reference
with feedback from the control room.11 The Velcro not only allowed for easy
adjustment but also prevented the cord from hindering the pilot in the event of
an emergency ejection. In addition to the marked cord, AAW loads engineers
developed another handy tool. A simple influence coefficient table printed on a
scrap of paper was taped to one of the control room display consoles at the beginning of each flight. Using information from this table along with telemetry data
measuring peak lateral stick position and maximum component loads produced
by an initial maneuver, the test conductor could direct the pilot to attempt the
next expansion increment without overshooting load limits. This process was
successfully repeated hundreds of times. The dirty shoestring and the scrap
paper look-up table did the trick, Lokos noted.12
11. William A. Lokos, personal communication to author, December 13, 2012.
12. Ibid.
64
Because of the dispute over the two aerodynamic databases, NASA AAW
program managers had agreed to continue flying up to Test Point #14 and
then brief the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) committee before continuing.
It was noted that the AAW pilot was unable to complete the full-stick rolling
maneuver at Mach 1.2 and 20,000 feet due to excessive sideslip and hingemoment buildup. Since it was now clear that the NASA Dryden simulation
better predicted sideslip at this flight condition, the AAW team decided to
apply the ISMD process using the NASA aerodynamic data to develop three
supersonic test points. NASA engineers took this opportunity to revise previous
NASA test point designs, as well as those that had been designed by Boeing.13
Testing resumed on January 19 and continued through March. Purifoy and
Ewers continued to alternate as pilots, flying ASE and roll buildup maneuvers
for each of the test points. Very few significant problems occurred during the
course of the program, with the exception of recurring difficulties with the
leading-edge-flap drive system. The outboard leading-edge-flap asymmetry
control units failed inspection and had to be repaired and retested, and the
airplane was briefly grounded to repair a cracked fuselage-skin panel. While
awaiting analysis of alternate control law gains, the AAW team tested a secondary control law overlay for the RFCS. NASA and Boeing engineers also created a software overlay to minimize regression testing requirements. The four
final planned Phase 2 flights occurred on March 31, 2005. Each pilot flew two
sorties to complete testing of the RFCS secondary control law overlay. Ewers
flew a follow-on flight on April 11 to collect wing-deflection data through a
flight profile at Mach 0.9 and 20,000 feet, and to perform Mach 0.85 POPU
maneuvers at 10,000 and 20,000 feet.14
The AAW research team was extremely happy with the overall results of
the program. Larry Myers summed up the 21st century twist on the Wright
brothers century-old wing-warping concept in two words: It works!15
We have demonstrated a number of subsonic and supersonic flight conditions where we have actually taken advantage of the aeroelasticity of the
wing, Myers explained. Weve gotten excellent results, good agreement with
predicted results (and) roll rates are comparable to what we predicted in simulation. It looks like weve proven the AAW concept.16
13. Field et al., The Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Program, the X-53Final
Report, p. 310.
14. Ibid., pp. 310311.
15. Alan Brown, AAW Phase 2 Completed, The X-Press 47, no. 2, NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center (March 25 2005): p. 6.
16. Ibid., p. 6.
65
Following completion of the AAW flight research program, the F-18 test bed was redesignated
the X-53 and used for a variety of projects. (NASA)
66
Chapter 4:
1. Holly Jordan, Active Aeroelastic Wing flight research vehicle receives X-53 designation,
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661, December 11, 2006, accessed May
20, 2012.
2. Dryden Aircraft: F/A-18 #853, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/aircraft/F-18_853/index.
html, November 28, 2011, accessed June 18, 2012.
67
Futuristic airliner concepts such as the n3x, seen here in an artists rendering, might include
AAW technologies for optimum flying characteristics. (NASA)
68
Boeing and Lockheed Martin teamed up to design this concept for a Next Generation Bomber.
Such a design would be an ideal application of AAW technology. (Boeing/Lockheed Martin)
69
Boeing is studying blended-wing-body concepts for application to new passenger/cargo transport and aerial tanker designs. (Boeing)
70
71
This Boeing advanced fighter concept closely resembles a configuration examined under the
Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle (ESAVE) study. (Boeing)
9. Clifton Davies, Marc Stelmack, Scott Zink, Antonio De La Garza, and Pete Flick, High Fidelity
MDO Process Development and Application to Fighter Strike Conceptual design, AIAA-20125490, 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Indianapolis, IN
(September 2012).
10. Pete Flick, personal communication to author, August 31, 2012.
72
Team members from the Air Force, NASA, and Boeing contributed to the success of the AAW
flight research program. (NASA)
74
Chapter 5:
Program Management
and Direction
The F-18 AAW research team included participation by personnel from NASA,
the Department of Defense (Air Force and Navy), industry, and academia.
Their synergistic efforts assured fulfillment of all technical, management, and
product transition requirements for the project.
NASA Dryden served as the responsible test organization and management lead for the flight-test program, and it provided support to Rockwell
(later Boeing, following a 1996 merger) for development of detailed AFW/
AAW flight control laws. Dryden also served as technical lead on aircraft systems, analytical model development, simulation, testing, and data reduction.
Technicians at Dryden installed the wings and instrumentation. Larry Myers
served as NASA AAW project manager, with Denis Bessette as flight research
program manager and David Voracek as AAW chief engineer. With previous
AFW wind tunnel experience, researchers at NASA Langley provided additional support for development of analytical models.1
The Air Force Research Laboratory, which had absorbed AFWL in 1997,
was responsible for overall program direction, integration of participating organization objectives, integration of technologies into the flight vehicle research
design, hardware procurement, analysis of resulting data for military applications, and documentation of results applicable to current and future aircraft
weapon system development. The flight-test program began with the request
by Lt. Col. Ken Griffin (chief of the Structures Division in AFRLs Air Vehicle
Directorate) of Edmund W. Pendleton to gather the information developed by
both NASA and AFRL research programs with Rockwell and explore the possibility of a flight-test program to further mature AAW technology. The resulting
program was managed by AFRL and funded through a contract with Boeing and
a memorandum of agreement with NASA. Pendleton served as AFRL program
manager from 1992 to 2001 and as AFRL chief engineer for the AAW program
from 2002 to 2005. Pete Flick served as chief engineer from 1997 to 2001
1. White, Active Flexible Wing Technology Demonstration.
75
76
flight-test program for AAW. Ultimately, AFRL, NASA, and Boeing had to
unite their resources. Advocates fostered technical interest and highlighted
the technologys value to the aerospace industry and military services. Study
contracts generated industry support from companies that might otherwise
have adopted a Not Invented Here attitude.6
Support for the AAW program resulted from several factors. Aircraft suitability studies with the X-31, F-16, and F-18 provided a general concept for a
test bed vehicle configuration and an outline for the flight-test series. The idea
of using Edwards Air Force Base and Drydenwith their combination of assets
and unique resourcesas the test location convinced AFRL leadership that it
should sponsor the program. Researchers within the NASA aeroelastic flighttest community joined with Air Force and industry advocates to solicit NASA
support. Early on, key people within AFRL recommended a joint effort with
NASA because of Drydens previous experience with innovative flight experiments and state-of-the-art flight research support facilities. Advocates such as
Ed Pendleton worked to convince AFRL leadership that the multidisciplinary
character of AAW technology was ideal for a joint program.7
AAW advocates also sought participation from the Air Force Flight Test
Center at Edwards, not just to take advantage of the organizations expertise but
also to preempt any detractors who felt that AFFTC should lead the effort. Ed
Pendleton noted that the AFFTC, with more than half a century of flight-test
experience and numerous aeronautical milestones to its credit, is first and foremost in the minds of Air Force leadership when it comes to executing innovative
test projects. So, why not go to AFFTC first? In our case, Pendleton said, the
answer was that we wanted to do both demonstration of the AAW technology
and research into how the aerodynamics, flight controls, and structure all worked
together to improve rolling performance on a full scale aircraft.8
Because Dryden specializes in flight research, it was the obvious choice to
serve as the responsible test organization. This was especially obvious once the
NASA F-18 had been selected as a test bed. Dryden already had significant
experience with using the F-18 in a variety of comparable research efforts, including the HARV and the SRA. Additionally, Dryden and AFFTC had already
established an alliance agreement to facilitate sharing of assets that included the
runways and test ranges at Edwards, so adding the Air Force organization to the
team made sense and circumvented rivalry. By inviting AFFTC to join us as a
6. Anderson et al., Summary of Lessons Learned from the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research
Program.
7. Ibid.
8. Ed Pendleton, personal communication with author, July 11, 2012.
77
78
for air-vehicle systems and flight testing, and the other for control law methods
and development. NASA Dryden led the air-vehicle systems team, with support
from Boeing, and was responsible for aircraft modifications, control system flight
qualification, database development, simulation, and flight testing. Boeing led
the control law development team with support from Dryden and Langley,
and with the Southwest Research Institute and AFRL providing consultation.
Both teams worked together to ensure compatibility of the control laws with
the aircraft systems and to flight-qualify the integrated systems and software.11
The AAW program managers developed an IPT charter to define the mission statement, organization, performance goals, end product, and ground rules
necessary for achieving success. This charter clarified the overall program goals,
resources required from the funding organizations, and exit strategy. Further,
it committed the organizationto the extent possibleto meeting program
resource requirements.12 The Air Force portion of the IPT charter described
support needed from the various AFRL technical divisions responsible for aerodynamics, structures, and flight controls. During the AFW wind tunnel studies
at Langley, all three divisions provided support, but during the AAW flight-test
program, the flight controls group never implemented the IPT charter, and there
were only two or three AFRL technical personnel on the project. According to
Ed Pendleton, There was almost no support from the Air Force flight controls
group once the contract got going in late 1996 until we completed the effort in
2005. Back during wind tunnel model testing at the TDT, we enjoyed support
from all three divisions, but by 1996, times had changed.13
The IPT integrated cost, schedule, and performance factors associated with
the AAW flight-test program. NASA drove the overall project schedule, adding
some tasks beyond those included in Boeings contract with the Air Force.
NASA paid the cost of these added requirements and picked up the additional
workload when cost increases prevented delivery on the original Air Force
contract. Mutual trust and schedule flexibility between Air Force, NASA, and
Boeing program managers was crucial to success.14
79
With landing gear and flaps down, NASA Drydens Active Aeroelastic Wing F/A-18A research
aircraft rolls toward final approach to the Edwards Air Force Base runway at the end of a test
flight. (NASA)
80
Chapter 6:
81
article that met the requirements of the AAW investigation and increased highspeed roll control power of the outboard leading-edge flaps by 30 percent while
meeting demanding load, rate, and safety requirements. An extensive research
instrumentation system included more than 1,600 separate measurements that
allowed for safety-of-flight monitoring, as well as establishing a database quantifying AAW technology benefits.3 Development of the new outboard leadingedge-flap actuator resulted in four independent control surfaces per wing for
improved maneuver performance and load control. The test beds dual flight
control computers and reversion capability provided sufficient safety margins
for high-speed flight testing.4 Wing modifications successfully restored stiffness levels to pre-Roll-Mod conditions, but two problems were encountered.
First, more refurbishment was required than had been anticipated due to the
degraded state of the existing structure. Second, the task of duplicating an
obsolete structural condition was complicated by the loss of documentation
and first-hand knowledge over the intervening 20 years between construction
of the preproduction F-18 and the AAW wing. Electrical- and hydraulic-system
modifications were completed without difficulty. Computer modeling and
rapid prototyping of the new actuator facilitated design, construction, and
installation of new components.5
3. Ibid.
4. Field et al., The Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Program, the X-53Final
Report, p. 323.
5. Ibid., pp. 326327.
82
Full-Scale Demonstration
The third objective, demonstrating AAW technology with a full-scale airplane,
provided accurate flight-test data to validate predictive models without compromising safety. Initial flights gave pilots an opportunity to perform basic
functional checks, clear the performance envelope, calibrate air data, verify
flight computer reversion capability, and verify that leading-edge-flap failure
would not pose a safety hazard. Research pilots performed windup turns,
rolls, and rolling pullouts to identify the operational value of AAW technology at specified flight conditions. Additional maneuvers demonstrated flight
at high dynamic pressures without using the differential stabilator that augments roll power on the standard F-18. All test maneuvers were performed
without exceeding structural load limits or experiencing software errors. An
incremental buildup approach to flight-test procedures allowed researchers to
identify potential danger and adjust AAW control laws accordingly. Tests of
the full-scale AAW test bed proved that the AAW wing warping technique met
the control power and handling requirements of high-performance aircraft.8
Evaluation of Results
Finally, the fourth objective involved collection of full-scale experimental data
to improve modeling of basic nonlinear elements of the mechanics of flight
and to develop an extensive database for use by researchers from the Air Force,
NASA, U.S. industry, and academic institutions.9 Evaluation of AAW flighttest results with respect to predictions and simulation identified further per
6. Ibid., p. 323.
7. Ibid., p. 328.
8. Ibid., pp. 323324.
9. Pendleton, Voracek, Reichenbach, and Griffin, The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Research Program.
83
formance improvements that could have been made with additional program
resources, as well as design challenges to be addressed in the application of AAW
technology to future aircraft. Researchers faced their most significant challenge
in developing aerodynamic and loads data that accurately captured aeroelastic
effects in all axes. The availability of higher-fidelity aeroelastic analysis tools
would have expedited progress. Existing models did not always sufficiently
approximate the desired roll acceleration feedback, resulting in compromised
effectiveness of the rolling surface-to-rudder interconnect. Although the experimental flight controls were successful in harnessing aeroelastic control power
to achieve desired maneuver performance within acceptable load parameters,
some limitations were imposed due to constraints associated with the production F-18 control laws. Most notably, since no roll acceleration feedback was
available, it had to be approximated by differencing the commanded and actual
roll rate values. Nevertheless, despite the near absence of any fine-tuning of the
control laws, demonstrated AAW performance levels were quite impressive.10
84
tunnel pressure data. Simulations were improved using flight data based on
the PID results plus nonlinear maneuver updates.12
Loads engineers were challenged to develop accurate structural loads
predictions since no good starting point was available and because the
AAW flight demonstration was designed to achieve design-limit loads. The
research team concluded that, Even with the linear derivative models based
on parameter identification results, correlation with flight test results is fair,
underscoring the importance of developing a validated flight simulation
nonlinear loads database.13
Ground testing in the Dryden Loads Lab allowed researchers to successfully characterize wing flexibility and the effects of AAW modifications to the
F-18. Engineers used the results to establish data for correlation with the finite
element model. Calibration of flight-loads instrumentation produced data for
development of accurate load equations as required for reliable safety-of-flight
monitoring. Ground vibration tests identified the aircrafts modal characteristics, and the structural mode interaction test demonstrated the airplanes
servoelastic stability.
85
Lessons Learned
The F-18 AAW demonstration program yielded many valuable lessons. These are
applicable to a variety of disciplines including test bed suitability and modification, ground and flight testing, and program management and organization.17
15. Ibid.
16. White, Active Flexible Wing Technology Demonstration.
17. Anderson et al., Summary of Lessons Learned from the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research
Program.
86
87
Item 1-2
X-31 Design Study.
Goals
Conduct a contractor design study to explore the suitability of using one of
two X-31 supersonic research aircraft as an AAW technology demonstrator.
Results
This approach was abandoned following the crash of an X-31 at Edwards in
1995. The airplane was completing its final flight and would have been available for the AAW program.
Lessons Learned
When a two-of-a-kind asset is reduced to one, future use of the surviving asset
becomes severely restricted. The remaining X-31 had already been allocated for
use in another research project and was not available for the AAW program.
88
Item 1-3
F-18 Design Study.
Goals
Conduct a contractor design study to explore the suitability of using a modified
F-18 supersonic aircraft as an AAW technology demonstrator.
Results
A McDonnell Douglas F-18 study demonstrated the viability of adding an
actuation system to separately drive leading edge outboard flaps as AAW control surfaces. Wings manufactured for the preproduction F-18 prototypes
had stiffness levels suitable for the AAW demonstration. Cost of all modifications was estimated at approximately $8 million. Boeing acquired McDonnell
Douglas through a 1997 merger prior to the full-scale AAW flight demonstration program.
Lessons Learned
1. AAW flight testing ultimately proved the feasibility of the early
design studies.
2. Overall F-18 AAW modification costs on an Air Force contract were
$9.282 million. This number reflects Boeing modification costs but
not ground or flight costs. Additional NASA costs resulted from
completion of wing hydraulic plumbing and instrumentation.
3. The early studies yielded only very rough cost estimates.
89
Item 1-4
The application of AAW technology is important in all aerodynamic flight
regimes (subsonic, transonic, and supersonic).
Goals
Demonstrate AAW capabilities at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speeds.
Results
The research team successfully demonstrated AAW capabilities in all flight regimes.
Lessons Learned
AAW technology worked satisfactorily on the F-18 test bed, but it could be
more effectively applied in a new aircraft design that incorporates AAW features.
90
Item 1-5
Assembling an Active Aeroelastic Wing designed for strength and freedom from
buckling and flutter, with no added structural material for roll effectiveness.
Goals
Modify the wings of a supersonic aircraft to achieve AAW stiffness/structural
requirements.
Results
Technicians modified the wings of a production F-18 to a stiffness level suitable for the AAW technology demonstration. Wings from one of the original
preproduction F-18 prototypes were used as a starting point because they had
greater flexibility than production wings.
Lessons Learned
1. The AAW design approach can be used to achieve roll performance
goals without increasing wing stiffness.
2. AAW technology can be successfully applied to fighter-type aircraft
with an aspect ratio of 3.5 or greater.
91
Item 1-6
Use of multiple leading- and trailing-edge control surfaces to exploit AAW
characteristics.
Goals
Develop an aircraft wing with multiple leading- and trailing-edge control surfaces for use over a wide range of Mach numbers and dynamic pressure values.
Results
The research team developed an AAW wing for the F-18 by modifying the leading-edge-flap actuation system. Flight-test results validated the use of all control surfaces over the planned range of Mach numbers and dynamic pressures.
Lessons Learned
1. The modified leading edges on the test bed were effective at supersonic speeds but less so in the transonic range. The trailing-edge
outboard surfaces were ineffective for maneuvering control at high
speeds, but they were very effective for controlling structural loads.
2. Use of combinations of leading- and trailing-edge surfaces provided
substantial control power and aeroelastic roll effectiveness over the
demonstrated Mach and dynamic-pressure range.
92
Item 1-7
Use of aileron effectiveness for roll control.
Goals
Achieve aileron reversal and use reversed forces to help roll the aircraft. Early
studies suggested that this goal was practical.
Results
Full aileron reversal could not be attained at achievable flight conditions with
this flight-test vehicle.
Lessons Learned
Researchers expected to see aileron reversal, but aileron control power went
to zero and no further.
93
94
Item 2-2
Actuation of the inboard and outboard leading-edge flap drive system (LEFDS).
Goals
Segment the inboard LEFDS from outboard leading-edge flaps. Drive the
outboard LEFDS by adding a new power unit, asymmetric control unit, brake,
and shaft. The estimated subcontract cost was $1.4 million.
Results
Modified the LEFDS as desired and added a new power drive unit, asymmetric
control unit, brake, and shaft. The actual cost was $1.56 million. The subcontractor (Moog) funded additional quality testing after expenses exceeded
contract dollars.
Lessons Learned
1. Leading-edge outboard (LEO) surfaces can be used as maneuver/
load control surfaces.
2. The new LEFDS worked well, with actuator response rates near 45
degrees per second.
3. LEO divergence was well above flight envelope for an F-18.
95
Item 2-3
Leading-edge inboard/outboard drive system spares.
Goals
The AAW team planned to procure one ship set of leading-edge outboard
actuators and asymmetry control units (ACUs), plus a quality-test actuator
as a backup.
Results
Actuator quantity proved sufficient, but brake pads on inboard and outboard
ACUs drifted out of specifications.
Lessons Learned
Obtain at least one spare unit of each unique piece of hardware to avoid significant schedule delays.
96
Item 2-4
Flight computer.
Goals
Modify existing analog-to-digital (A/D) printed circuitboard to drive LEFDS
power-distribution unit, and modify software in existing quad-redundant
flight control computer. Estimated subcontractor costs were approximately
$576,000.
Results
The existing board contained an excessive number of jumper modifications.
The team installed a new A/D board in the FCC and made wiring changes to
the chassis. Actual subcontract costs were $1.012 million.
Lessons Learned
It is important to accurately track previous software and hardware configuration changes. Previous changes affected new changes to the FCC with the
subcontractor.
97
Item 2-5
Flight control computer spares.
Goals
The original plan was to modify only one ship set of flight control computers.
Results
NASA funded an additional FCC ship set for use in the AAW test bed.
Lessons Learned
Two ship sets are the absolute minimum required when conducting testing at
two different locations even if sequential testing has been scheduled. Multiple
ship sets at each location allow testing to continue in the event of unforeseen
contingencies.
98
Item 2-6
Developing confidence in using the Integrated Structure/Maneuver Design
(ISMD) Optimization Design Tool software.
Goals
Boeing planned to use ISMD, a new design tool, as a guide to develop control
laws for AAW.
Results
AAW control laws were successfully demonstrated at nine transonic and nine
supersonic test points.
Lessons Learned
1. ISMD gains, designed with Boeing V-Dev (F-18 project database)
linear aero-software, gave designed maneuvering performance
and good flying qualities in the modular 6-degrees-of-freedom
(MODSDF) nonlinear piloted simulation using V-Dev nonlinear
aero, with minor gain adjustments after batch nonlinear simulation.
This aircraft did not need ISMD gain adjustment as a result of rigidbody stability analysis. The stability analysis used the linear design
aero as the bare airframe linear analysis model.
2. The team developed confidence in the ISMD tool. Linear aero gives
good results. Flying in real aero may require tweaks.
3. The MATLAB optimization function used in this study needs further improvement regarding global optimization.
99
Item 2-7
AAW flight control law design.
Goals
1. Develop flight control laws at 20 predetermined transonic and
supersonic flight-test conditions (9 transonic and 11 supersonic)
at an estimated cost of $2.4 million under a Boeing interdivisional
work authorization (IWA).
2. Verify and validate Boeing module and Flight control electronic set
Automated Software Test (FAST) using Matrix X autocoder at an
estimated cost of $1.67 million.
Results
1. Boeing developed AAW control laws at 18 flight-test conditions (2
supersonic flight-test conditions were eliminated because they could
not be achieved in level flight) using NASTRAN, ISMD, Matrix X,
MODSDF, and MATLAB. Actual costs totaled $2.2 million under
the Boeing IWA. NASA used CONDUIT to develop a set of control laws to maximize performance and limit loads.
2. Boeing module and FAST verification and validation testing actually
cost $1.9 million.
Lessons Learned
Different sets of control laws using slightly different control usage sets obtained
satisfactory roll performance at most flight conditions. Initial AAW F-18 flight
research testing produced higher-than-predicted roll rates. AAW technology was
successfully proven in full scale, but the effort experienced some cost increases.
100
Item 2-8
Flight research instrumentation.
Goals
The AAW team planned to install instrumentation comparable to that used
in previous F-18 loads flight-test aircraft. The project allocated $170,000 for
instrumentation in the original budget.
Results
NASA provided an additional $200,000 for instrumentation. This resulted
in a full suite of instrumentation including a flight data management system,
accelerometers, strain gages, and control surface position sensors.
Lessons Learned
1. Planners did not adequately consider instrumentation requirements
early in program.
2. Planners should have programmed a work breakdown structure task
to determine correct types and quantity of instrumentation needed.
3. The project benefited greatly from having a partner (NASA) willing
to cover this expense.
4. Ultimately, the aircraft was sufficiently instrumented to meet program requirements.
101
Item 2-9
AAW design process (aero/loads database development).
Goals
Start with existing databases, then analytically modify and augment them.
Results
Parameter identification (PID) flight testing was used primarily to reduce
structural loads risk beyond what was reasonably achievable through analysis.
Lessons Learned
1. Timely design confidence is more effectively obtained through PID
early in the flight-test program.
2. Key technical contributors (i.e., good loads and aero databases) need
to be well understood in order to conduct a useful experiment.
102
3: Ground Testing
Item 3-1
Premodification wing-stiffness testing.
Goals
Conduct a wing-stiffness test early in the program in order to characterize wing
bending and torsional stiffness of the preproduction F-18 wing with Roll I and
Roll II modifications, prior to AAW modifications.
Results
Researchers completed premodification stiffness tests and characterized baseline stiffness of a preproduction F-18 wing that had experienced a significant
number of flight hours. This proved very important because baseline upper
aft box wing cover fastener holes had elongated following years of flight and
maintenance.
Lessons Learned
1. Never assume analyses unsupported by tests will be accurate. Wingstiffness tests may be time consuming but proved valuable to the
AAW program.
2. Other aircraft research programs would undoubtedly benefit from
similar wing tests.
103
Item 3-2
Postmodification wing-stiffness testing.
Goals
Boeing planned to conduct a wing-stiffness test to characterize wing bending
and torsional stiffness of the F-18 wing following AAW modifications.
Results
NASA and Boeing completed postmodification wing-stiffness tests and characterized AAW F-18 wing stiffness. Pretest analysis had predicted a 17-percent reduction in stiffness, but comparison of pre- and postmodification tests
showed an approximately 12-percent difference in torsional stiffness due to
fastener hole elongation. NASA also accomplished extensive load calibration
testing.
Lessons Learned
1. The AAW wing modification resulted in a 5-percent effective reduction in wing stiffness.
2. This test proved that the AAW modification had returned the test
bed wing to the required stiffness level (as found on the preproduction F-18), and that the AAW wing met program requirements with
regard to buckling and flutter characteristics.
104
Item 3-3
Modal survey.
Goals
Boeing planned to conduct a vibration test to characterize the test bed aircrafts
natural frequencies and modes.
Results
A vibration test performed by NASA Dryden determined natural frequencies/
modes of F-18 AAW test bed.
Lessons Learned
1. F-18 AAW modal characteristics varied only slightly from those of
the standard F-18.
2. This test established a degree of confidence in flutter/aeroservoelastic
(ASE) analysis and flight-test clearance.
105
Item 3-4
Structural mode interaction (SMI) tests and flutter/ASE Phase 1 flight
maneuvers.
Goals
Boeing was to conduct an SMI test to gather no-wind response data to anchor
aeroservoelastic predictive analyses.
Results
NASA Dryden performed the SMI test.
Lessons Learned
1. SMI results compared reasonably well with predictions. Differences
between predictive models and ground-test results were important
measures to use for flight data analysis.
2. OBES excitation was critical for derivation of in-flight transfer functions as comparisons to predictions (ASE model validation).
3. Levels of uncertainty derived from ASE model-SMI and modelflight differences were important indicators of data quality.
Relatively poor-quality data was gathered at low-altitude subsonic
turbulence conditions, which biased the transfer functions to produce conservative results for Phase 2 guidance.
4. Phase 2 flight control laws were impacted by Phase 1 ASE flight
data.
5. The Phase 2 test plan was impacted by Phase 1 ASE results with
regard to providing subsonic ASE clearance for Phase 2 flight tests.
106
4: Flight Testing
Item 4-1
Decision to fly the AAW experiment rather than explore the technology
through ground experiments alone.
Goals
AAW technical development was already matured via both analysis and elaborate wind tunnel testing. Flight-test anchored adjustment factors were already
available for conventional controls. Key characteristics, especially Reynolds
number, were not well represented in scale models. Elevated loads were not
available with scaled aeroelastic wind tunnel models. Full-scale flight-testing offered the best opportunity for validating AAW technology for future
applications.
Results
Advocates of the AAW project argued convincingly that a full-scale, piloted
demonstrator would produce the most useful flight-test results. Internal politics and competition for funding necessitated tailoring the proposal for any
given audience, but project advocates always kept in mind the technical reasons
that formed the basis for the continual press toward flight testing.
Lessons Learned
Always have a solid understanding of the engineering reasons why flight testing
is necessary so that when arguments arise, the project is solidly justified from a
technical standpoint. Allow senior management to tailor the proposal to best
reach the audience that they are lobbying for support. Coordinate with the
organization that will conduct the flight testing in order to assure that all the
correct arguments, interagency support, and shared resources are committed
before open competition for funding goes public.
107
Item 4-2
Aerodynamic data and modeling.
Goals
Boeing planned to use the established aerodynamic database and modify it with
analytical results. Boeing planned to use A4 loads flight-test data to improve
the analytical loads model.
Results
Boeing updated the data based on Phase I PID flights, but the A4 data was
insufficient, so the company used results from the PID flights to create loads
models.
Lessons Learned
Based on pilot comments, it seems clear that the aerodynamic model for the
AAW aircraft should have better fidelity information for each control effector.
Traditional models with performance based on multiple control-effector inputs
do a poor job of predicting the effect of individual control surfaces.
108
Item 4-3
AAW flight simulation.
Goals
The research team planned to use a multistep approach to modify the existing
aerodynamics database with flex increments generated by aeroelastic analysis
and update it with data from the PID test flights.
Results
A flight-simulation program was developed using the modified database.
Lessons Learned
The research pilots found that the simulation provided an accurate prediction
of actual aircraft performance and flying qualities.
109
Item 4-4
Test bed flying qualities.
Goals
Provide acceptable flying qualities, but not at the expense of fully investigating
the implementation of AAW technology.
Results
AAW control laws exhibited Level I (clearly adequate for the mission flight
phase) flying qualities during simulation and flight, except for some transonic
test points where roll rates, though improved, were less than desired for an
operational aircraft (but not less than expected).
Lessons Learned
Based on pilot comments, the AAW flight control laws provided acceptable
flying qualities. The aircrafts response was smooth and predictable. No delays
or ratcheting were evident, and predictability allowed for precise bank captures.
110
Item 4-5
Roll performance.
Goals
Develop AAW technology to provide acceptable roll rates at all transonic and
supersonic flight conditions within the limits of the modified F-18 test bed.
Disable the rolling tail function provided by the differential stabilator.
Results
Overall transonic roll rates using AAW control laws were considerably higher
than those achieved with the original F-18 aircraft control laws. Some transonic roll rates were less than required, but this could be improved with a full
application of AAW technology in a new airframe.
Lessons Learned
Although aircraft roll performance was generally acceptable, some roll rates
were unacceptably slow for aggressive maneuvering. Because the simulations
predicted these performance points, research pilots were able to adjust their
flight profiles accordingly.
111
Item 4-6
Test bed limitations.
Goals
Use an existing supersonic aircraft as a test bed for AAW flight research.
Results
The F-18 proved to be the best available candidate, though it was often operating at the edge of its performance envelope. This greatly reduced the efficiency
of the test flights.
Lessons Learned
1. Future tests should be accomplished using an aircraft that does not
need to fly at the limits of its capabilities.
2. Unanticipated pitot static accuracy problems in the supersonic
regime caused researchers to adopt a GPS work-around solution to
determining altitude. This would be less of a problem with a fullenvelope flight control system.
112
5: Flight-Test Results
Item 5-1
Parameter identification test flights using the F-18 Systems Research Aircraft
(SRA).
Goals
This option was not in the original research plan.
Results
Added to program in CY 2000, this approach provided a huge risk-reduction
factor for later AAW flights. SRA flight data added confidence to proceed
during the first flight readiness review.
Lessons Learned
Never miss an opportunity to reduce risk by testing a technical idea on a triedand-true flight test bed. It could save costs later.
113
Item 5-2
Aileron effectiveness.
Goals
Incorporate aileron effectiveness in the AAW control laws.
Results
Programmers designed the control laws to use both aileron and trailing-edge
inboard (TEI) flaps to control loads at high speeds during supersonic flight.
Lessons Learned
At one supersonic test point, collective gain for the trailing edges increased
sideslip excursion.
114
Item 5-3
TEI flap control surfaces.
Goals
Develop control laws for using the TEI flaps for AAW load control.
Results
Used both ailerons and TEI flaps to control loads supersonically at high
dynamic pressures.
Lessons Learned
With Boeing AAW control laws, the TEI flaps were not as effective supersonically for lateral control. At Test Point 17, the collective gain for trailing edges
increased sideslip, either because of vehicle asymmetry or due to flow from the
trailing-edge flap affecting the vertical tail.
115
Item 5-4
LEI flap control surfaces.
Goals
In the AAW configuration, the LEI flaps would be used similarly to those in
the baseline F-18.
Results
The LEI control surfaces were modified with increased travel in AAW gearing
function optimization. This was achievable at minimal cost because the original
design allowed increased travel.
Lessons Learned
When used up to 5 degrees, the LEI flaps contributed to roll rates. This modification would probably not have been pursued if hardware modifications
were required.
116
Item 5-5
LEO control surfaces.
Goals
Develop AAW control laws for effective use of LEO flaps.
Results
AAW control laws effectively exploited the LEO flaps.
Lessons Learned
At certain speeds, the effectiveness of both the LEO flaps and ailerons are
about equal.
117
Item 5-6
Test vehicle asymmetry.
Lessons Learned
1. When used with ISMD, NASA lateral-directional three-degrees-offreedom linear-design aerodynamics did not sufficiently represent
the test vehicles lateral-directional asymmetry with regards to roll
rate as modeled in NASAs PID-derived nonlinear aerodynamics. The baseline production F-18 does not have this magnitude of
asymmetry.
2. Several Boeing point-design control laws produced excessive sideslip
for left full-stick rolls.
3. NASA designed its control laws with nonlinear aero for a roll rate
sign having the worst bare airframe flying qualities. If asymmetry
was inherent to a design, solutions for the use of linear design aero
could also be formulated. There is nothing about AAW that inherently introduces the asymmetry that was encountered in flight
testing.
4. Not all researchers agreed that asymmetry was to blame. Robert
Clarke and Ryan Dibley, with associated researchers, pointed out
that early F-18 wind tunnel tests showed that the trailing-edge flaps
deflected airflow into the vertical tails that created yawing moments
greater than the capability of the rudder to counteract. For the X-53,
the Boeing aerodynamic model predicted almost no sideslip, while
the Dryden model predicted 2.8 degrees of sideslip (proverse yaw).
Flight data indicated a worse-than-predicted proverse yaw tendency,
apparently confirming the wind tunnel results.
118
Item 5-7
Linear loads model.
Lessons Learned
ISMD hinge-moment constraints should be included for each optimized control surface effector. Test vehicle asymmetry revealed the need for inclusion of
a rudder hinge-moment constraint in ISMD, which had not been included in
the linear design loads model.
119
Item 5-8
AAW control law architecture compatibility with ISMD optimization.
Lessons Learned
AAW control architecture should be modified for improved compatibility with
the current ISMD optimization. There are two areas for architectural compatibility improvement:
1. Include the input source signal to the ISMD normal acceleration
(Nz) proportional gains (PKx).
2. Include saturation limiting of the immediate outputs of ISMD roll
rate feedback gains RKx.
120
Item 5-9
Design aerodynamics approximating actual aerodynamics.
Lessons Learned
The positive feedback control law architecture and the current ISMD method,
which suggested this implementation, are very dependent on accurate design
aerodynamics (especially effector surface control power).
121
6: Program Management
Item 6-1
Solicitation instrument: Program Research Development Announcement
(PRDA).
Goals
The AAW research plan called for substantial, complex modification of a supersonic fighter jet. Use of a PRDA offered contractors increased flexibility in proposing their technical approaches. The effort was based on a competitive-bid,
cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) work breakdown structure (WBS). Cost estimates
were to be submitted within 60 days.
Results
The WBS was thorough, and it covered all aircraft modification tasks. The plan
only had to be modified slightly over the 5-year contract period. The WBS
had to be rebaselined twice to account for optimistic cost estimates, increased
Government requirements, and other unforeseen technical problems encountered on subcontracts for flight computer and actuator modification.
Lessons Learned
1. The CPFF contract/competitive-bid approach resulted in a low estimate of project costs. These costs should not have been used as an
initial program baseline. The Governments baseline should reflect
reasonable cost levels, which are often difficult to determine depending on the risks and uncertainties associated with the project.
2. The Government funding organization must be ready to live up to
the CPFF nature of the work, and budget accordingly.
122
Item 6-2
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract.
Goals
Under a CPFF contract, the contractor is paid a negotiated amount regardless
of incurred expenses. The low bid reflected the $11.8 million in available funds
listed in the PRDA.
Results
All of the WBS items for major modification tasks associated with AAW were
subject to cost increases. Total Air Force costs for the program grew to $13.86
million. Ground-test support had to shift to NASA within the Government
partnership agreement.
Lessons Learned
1. Cost growth is inevitable under a CPFF approach. A fixed-price
approach would force contractors to sharpen their cost estimates.
2. The timeline for preparing cost proposals would need to be
extended. A fixed-price effort would have likely cost around $17
million, but it may have included ground-test costs.
123
Item 6-3
Overall program costs.
Goals
Estimated Air Force costs totaled approximately $12 million, and estimated
NASA costs totaled approximately $12 million. Total estimated joint cost was
$24 million.
Results
1. Air Force costs included a $13.86 million contract to Boeing and a
$1.57 million Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR)
to NASA.
2. NASA direct costs (19972004) totaled $12.23 million plus $1.45
million for NASA range support.
Lessons Learned
1. Research of this type usually results in cost growth and must be
anticipated in out-year budgets.
2. Cost totals for AAW research were less than 50 percent of contract
costs for previous technology demonstration programs such as
the X-29 Forward Swept Wing and X-45 Unmanned Combat Air
Vehicle.
3. Costs increase as the program schedule is spread over multiple years
due to annual funding limits.
124
Item 6-4
Government-supplier relationships.
Goals
Planners examined several options for project management:
1. The integrated product-development team (IPT)
2. The customer/prime contractor/subcontractors
3. The consortium, with Government agency as integrator
Ultimately, they selected an IPT approach featuring an Air ForceNASA partnership via a Memorandum of Understanding. In the jointly funded program,
NASA operations were funded through NASA plus Air Force MIPR. The Air
Force contracted Boeing to modify the test bed and manage subcontractors.
NASA also established a support contract with Boeing.
Results
Cost, schedule, and performance were reasonably well integrated, but the program could have used an overarching master schedule. NASA drove the overall
project schedule, which was not entirely in line with the BoeingAir Force
contract schedule. The NASA schedule included additional tasks beyond those
included in Boeings contract with the Air Force. NASA paid the cost of these
added requirements and picked up the additional workload when cost increases
prevented delivery of the original Air Force contract. Boeing performed analyses and aircraft modifications, and it helped conduct tests.
Lessons Learned
1. The AAW IPT had a number of technical advantages and disadvantages, but it generally excelled.
2. Mutual trust and schedule flexibility between Air Force, NASA, and
Boeing program managers were crucial to success.
3. The funding pace gave the program time to work out issues.
4. A master schedule integrated across all stakeholders would have
helped, along with a simpler, more timely mechanism for making
contract changes.
125
Item 6-5
Class II modification requirements.
Goals
Class II modifications in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), a list
of the data deliverables to be produced by the contractor, required inclusion
of preliminary and final design data, performance, stability and control, mass
properties, power, safety analyses, airworthiness, and operating limits.
Results
Boeing increased safety planning to incorporate operational risk-management
techniques. All analyses and tests were conducted, documented, and delivered
by the supplier in the contractors format.
Lessons Learned
The Class II modification process produced an essential set of reports containing all analyses and test data needed to support mission success and flight-safety
decisions.
126
Item 6-6
Cost reporting.
Goals
Contract CDRL required use of Earned Value Management principles via cost
schedule status reporting (CSSR). This is required by law on all contracts that
exceed a prescribed dollar threshold.
Results
Program managers used CSSR tied to WBS aircraft-modification tasks. CSSR
is somewhat useful on research and development efforts, but delays of a month
or more render it inadequate as a useful, action-oriented tool. Use of CSSR
forced several rebaseline efforts that cost the program time and money.
Lessons Learned
1. The CSSR approach should be modified to accommodate some
relaxation of the rules to allow timely adjustment to WBS work
packages.
2. The CSSR system is difficult for contractors to use in research
efforts. Contractor internal rules imposed unwieldy review processes
on AAW program managers. Contractor program managers could
not implement changes quickly enough to keep CSSR reporting
relevant.
3. There is currently no way to exempt contractors from this requirement, but the limits of CSSR should be recognized.
4. Assessment of obsolete CSSR data by a financial analyst without
knowledge of overall program progress and technical metrics are useless and should be disregarded.
127
Item 6-7
Expenditure reporting.
Goals
The CDRL required contractor submission of monthly contract vouchers.
Results
Expenditure metrics were tracked using monthly reports. These vouchers were
necessary because Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) reporting
lagged by 2 or more months.
Lessons Learned
Do not depend on DFAS expenditure information because it significantly lags
behind current conditions. The DFAS often pays bills from funding supplied
during several previous fiscal years. DFAS reports are, at times, inaccurate and
unreliable.
128
Item 6-8
Funding profiles.
Goals
A majority of Air Force funding was attained via Program Element (PE)
63211F, augmented with funds from two other 6.3 PEs. NASA funding and
in-house efforts helped sustain final modifications, ground testing, and flighttest operations.
Results
Sufficient funds were obtained to complete the basic flight research program.
As is often the case with Government efforts, funding profiles available to
accomplish the budgeted cost of work scheduled were less than optimal.
Lessons Learned
Optimal funding profiles would result in improved program cost efficiencies. The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and Budget Estimate
Submission (BES) process, coupled with decisions to balance funding across
active programs, rarely provides optimal funding profiles, and it results in
increased overall costs to Government programs.
129
130
Item 7-2
Formation and development of a multi-agency team.
Goals
No single aeroelastic research group in any one Government agency had
the resources to mount a flight-test program for AAW. AFRL, Langley, and
Rockwell had to join their resources to make the initial aeroelastic wind tunnel
program possible. The ultimate goal eventually became development of a
Government/industry team capable of executing an AAW flight program to
prove the technology in full scale.
Results
Grassroots efforts by aeroelasticians in industry, NASA, and the Air Force
developed a working level interest in AAW technology among these organizations. Study contracts generated non-inventor interest for industry support,
and the results provided an outline for the flight-test program that convinced
AFRL leadership that it should be a sponsor. Despite evidence of some friction
resulting from past AFRL-NASA joint efforts, Air Force and industry advocates
convinced NASA to join the partnership. Researchers from Dryden were the
first onboard. Those at NASA Langley appeared somewhat reluctant to support
Dryden, until parallel aeroelastic control derivative model programs gave them
a reason to join. Contractor consolidation complicated creating the contractor
portion of the team. Through mergers, the McDonnell DouglasRockwell
team eventually became part of Boeing. An abundance of good technical reasons for pursuing the flight-test option gave AAW unstoppable momentum.
Lessons Learned
1. Technical interest, perceived value to the industry, and timing were
essential elements in attaining the cooperation of all stakeholders.
It was important to get the technical questions answered, network
among multiple agencies, and develop interest and support as early
as possible.
2. Informally work out any problems or obstacles to establishing a joint
effort early and behind the scenes.
3. Use Phase 6.2 study (feasibility study and option down-select)
money to develop contractor interest, and get as many contractors as
the budget will stand.
4. As long as the basic technical questions get answered, let each part
of a multi-agency/contractor team work their own technical agenda.
This gives the agencies/contractors additional incentive to support
the project.
131
5. Senior leadership should work to breach stovepipes and foster cooperation. Inspire continued support by briefing all interested parties
on progress, results, and benefits of the program. Spread kudos to all
who deserve them.
6. Ensure that the program has a definite end in sight so that all team
members anticipate a positive payout. This assures senior leadership
that they are not mortgaging their future budgets.
7. Years of advance preparation, including contractor development,
analytical studies, wind tunnel tests, etc., and the relationships
developed during these preliminary research efforts helped forge a
successful team.
8. Air Force leadership, supported heavily by the contractor, was crucial
to solidifying the team. Selection of a NASA-owned F-18 as the test
bed was a key ingredient in retaining NASA support.
9. Timing was also essential. During other years, higher priority programs are likely to have displaced this innovative tech push effort.
This novel program succeeded, in part, because it was small enough
to avoid excessive scrutiny that may have resulted in budget cuts.
132
133
various trim optimization compromises. The NASA Dryden team was able
to directly produce a control law because the CONDUIT tool performed
a constrained optimization of the control system. As described in the teams
final report, Tighter integration of control law design within the AAW design
process would produce better first time quality.21
In conclusion, the AAW flight research program successfully demonstrated
the technology in full scale, proving that it is possible to exploit aeroelastic
effects for a net benefit. Research results generated a flight-test database for
correlation with wind tunnel data and analytical predictions. According to Pete
Flick, the correlation of those data sets will be developed into design guidelines
for future applications of the technology.22
Ed Pendleton led a team made up of Air Force, NASA, and industry to
develop and promote the AAW concept for more than two decades, and he is
quick to point out its historic roots. The Wright brothers were the first to use
wing flexibility and wing twist in their wing-warping concept, he explained.
It was novel in 1903 and it has essentially taken us 100 years to come back
to it and try to use wing flexibility for the benefit of aircraft design. Were
hoping this program will break the current paradigms for wing design and
essentially change the way wing designs are viewed in the future.23
21. Ibid.
22. Levine, Phase Two: Effectiveness of wing twist for roll control will be explored, p. 4.
23. Christian Gelzer and Jay Levine, Re-Wright: Wing design of the future borrows from original
flyer, X-Press, Special Active Aeroelastic Wing Edition, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
(December 17, 2003): p. 5.
134
Appendix 1:
Flight-Test Log
NASA Dryden received F-18A (Navy Bu. No. 161744) on March 4, 1999, and
gave it NASA tail number 853. It was later modified for the AAW flight research
program, which was divided into two phases. Phase 1 (Block 1) included
functional check flights, aircraft maneuvering, flutter/aeroservoelastic (ASE)
envelope clearance, and simulated outboard leading-edge flap (OLEF) failures.
Phase 1 (Block 2) consisted of air data calibration flights to ensure accurate
measurement of aircraft velocity, Mach number, angle of attack, and sideslip
during flight tests. Phase 1 (Block 3) parameter identification flights were used
to update the existing aerodynamic database, eliminate database deficiencies,
and improve the loads database for development of AAW control laws. A total
of 50 Phase 1 flights plus one follow-on sortie were accomplished between
November 15, 2002, and June 25, 2003. Phase 2 consisted of 34 AAW control law development flights plus one follow-on sortie that were accomplished
between December 14, 2004, and April 11, 2005. Dana Purifoy and Dick
Ewers served as project pilots. The highly modified test aircraft, with its unique
research flight control system, was redesignated X-53 on August 16, 2006, per
memo by the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategic Plans and Programs.1
It was subsequently named the Full-scale Advanced Systems Testbed (FAST),
and used for control system development in the Integrated Resilient Aircraft
Control (IRAC) project, sponsored by NASAs Aviation Safety Program.2 This
flight log encompasses all sorties undertaken during the span of the AAW flight
research program.
1. Holly Jordan, Active Aeroelastic Wing flight research vehicle receives X-53 designation, http://
www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661, December 11, 2006, accessed May 20, 2012.
2. Curt Hansen, Jacob Schaefer, John J. Burken, Marcus Johnson, and Nhan Nguyen, Handling
Qualities Evaluations of Low Complexity Model Reference Adaptive Controllers for Reduced Pitch
and Roll Damping Scenarios, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, August 2011.
135
Flight #2
19 NOV 02
Ewers
Flight #3
19 NOV 02
Purifoy
136
Objectives
Comments
AAW Phase 1 (Block 1)
Perform functional
Loss of GPS/Inertial Navigation System
check flight (FCF),
(INS) data and telemetry link (TM2)
flutter clearance for two during engine startup. Restored prior to
baseline test points, and takeoff. Pilot noted no adverse handling
OLEF failure emulation
qualities. Minor asymmetric buffet on left
maneuvers in auto
wing. Maximum altitude was 25,997 feet.
flaps-up (AFU) for 3,
Maximum speed was 361 knots (Mach
6, and 10 degree
0.86). A maximum normal load factor of
deflections.
3 gs was achieved. A maximum angle
of attack (AOA) of 20.5 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 1.14 hours.
Afterburner takeoff. Pilot noted left wing
ASE/flutter envelope
expansion, and to
higher than right at high throttle settings.
Completed the ASE/flutter test points for
checkout aircraft
the first two subsonic AAW test points,
operation in standard
began flight controls investigation, and
flight controls (701E)
performed part of an integrated FCF
compared to research
maneuver. The flight was cut short due
flight control system
to a chase aircraft Fuel Low caution.
(RFCS).
Maximum altitude was 16,600 feet.
Maximum speed was 485 knots (Mach
0.91). A maximum normal load factor of
5 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA of
10 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.98 hours.
Continue with ASE/flutter Completed ASE/flutter test points for three
envelope expansion
subsonic AAW test points and further
checkout aircraft
investigated aircraft operation in standard
operation in standard
flight controls (701E) compared to RFCS.
flight controls (701E)
Reversion check could not be accomplished
compared to RFCS. For due to missed onboard excitation system
this flight, the takeoff
(OBES) engagement step. During the
envelope airspeed limit attempted maneuver, aileron hinge-moment
was 445 knots indicated load was approximately 100 percent of the
airspeed (KIAS).
Flight Operating Limit. Maximum altitude
and velocity were 15,240 feet and 533
knots (Mach 0.96). A maximum normal load
factor of 5 gs was achieved. A maximum
AOA of 8.6 degrees was obtained. Flight
time: 0.88 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #4
26 NOV 02
Ewers
Flight #5
26 NOV 02
Purifoy
Flight #6
10 DEC 02
Ewers
Objectives
Continue flutter
envelope expansion
with integrated FCF
maneuvers.
Comments
Continued expanding the envelope for ASE/
flutter and performed an integrated FCF
maneuver. During this flight, maximum
altitude and velocity were 12,340 feet
and 594 knots (Mach 0.97). A maximum
normal load factor of 2.5 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.2 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.81 hours.
Completed ASE/flutter envelope expansion
Finish ASE/flutter
test points with repeats and integrated
envelope expansion
FCF maneuver. Pilot noted slight roll-off
with repeats, and
perform integrated FCF during OLEF failure emulation maneuvers.
maneuvers, OLEF failure Performed two tower fly-bys to Mach 0.8
and 0.9 and two 5-g WUTs for symmetric
emulation maneuver
with half flaps, a tower loads investigation. Maximum altitude
and velocity were 25,330 feet and 595
fly-by, and a couple of
5-g windup turns (WUTs) knots (Mach 0.98). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.2 gs was achieved. A
for symmetric loads
maximum AOA of 10.2 degrees was
investigation.
obtained. Flight time: 0.97 hours.
AAW Phase 1 (Block 2)
Perform air data
Pilot reported that during acceleration
calibration maneuvers. to 0.97 Mach, the altimeter wound off
about 300 feet. During repositioning turns
throughout the flight, the pilot hovered
around the 45-degree angle of bank
(AOB) limit, sometimes reaching up to 48
degrees AOB. During this flight, maximum
altitude and velocity were 16,205 feet
and 598 knots (Mach 0.98). A maximum
normal load factor of 4.6 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 12.3 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 1.0 hour.
137
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #7
10 DEC 02
Purifoy
Flight #8
20 DEC 02
Ewers
Flight #9
20 DEC 02
Purifoy
138
Objectives
Perform final air data
calibration maneuvers.
Comments
Completed air data calibration maneuvers
with repeats. Pilot reported both Mach
and altimeter jump during high beta
(sideslip). During this flight, maximum
altitude and velocity were 16,240 feet
and 592 knots (Mach 0.97). A maximum
normal load factor of 4.4 gs was
achieved. A maximum AOA of 7.5 degrees
was obtained. Flight time: 1.0 hour.
AAW Phase 1 (Block 3)
Repeat OLEF failure
Pilot noted that he could see the
emulation in AFU,
deflections but felt nothing in the cockpit.
Roll power was smooth at 7.4 to 7.5
perform OLEF failure
emulation at full flaps,
degrees AOA. Slight buffet at 8.0 to 8.2
degrees AOA. Aircraft was responsive and
and begin parameter
easily controllable. Differential doublets
identification (PID) for
seemed to have more roll at Mach 0.85
AAW subsonic test
than at Mach 0.88. During this flight,
conditions.
maximum altitude and velocity were
26,000 feet and 503 knots (Mach 0.97).
A maximum normal load factor of 5.1 gs
was achieved. A maximum AOA of 11.1
degrees was obtained. Flight time: 0.9
hours.
Repeat the OLEF failure Stable, light buffeting, and a little right
emulation with full flaps, wing drop. Flow separation at 10 degrees
perform a loads/handling AOA. Postflight comments included a
qualities integrated test suggestion that the pilots may need a few
block at 15,000 feet and minutes between rolls and that aircraft
Mach 0.95, continue
unload from the rolls is odd, that 7/8-stick
rolls are difficult and unrepeatable, and
with subsonic PID
that the aileron may have been stalling
maneuvers, and begin
during some maneuvers. During this
subsonic loads model
verification maneuvers. flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 25,916 feet and 505 knots (Mach
0.98). A maximum normal load factor of
5.1 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA of
10.5 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
1.0 hour.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #10
24 JAN 03
Ewers
Flight #11
24 JAN 03
Ewers
Flight #12
07 FEB 03
Purifoy
Objectives
Perform an aircraft
checkout Integrated
Test Block (ITB) at 5,000
feet and Mach 0.95,
and continue with OBES
PID and loads model
verification maneuvers.
Comments
After startup, the leading-edge flap (LEF)
was split, producing a FLAPS OFF caution
and preventing the pilot from resetting the
flight controls until the pilot put the flight
control system (FCS) in OVERRIDE. During
aileron maneuver with -lateral-stick,
360-degree roll, the RFCS disengaged.
The full-stick 4-g rolling pullout maneuver
exceeded 110 percent of the hingemoment load limit, and the control room
called return to base (RTB). During this
flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 18,490 feet and 597 knots (Mach
0.98). A maximum normal load factor of
5.2 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 6.2 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.7 hours.
Continue with OBES PID During execution of the aircraft Day-ofFlight and Pilot Checklist procedures,
maneuvers at 15,000
feet and Mach 0.95, and the control room observed an anomaly
with the FCS display. One maneuver
begin the final aircraft
checkout ITB at 5,000
produced a high aileron hinge moment
(approximately 108 percent). During
feet and 0.85 Mach.
an ITB reversion check, right wing fold
bending/torque exceeded 110 percent
and the control room called RTB. During
this flight, maximum flight conditions
were not recorded. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
Continue with OBES PID The pilot performed an OBES maneuver
maneuvers and perform to verify that the left digital display
repeats of loads model
indicator (DDI) was adequate for flight
verification maneuvers
without the right DDI warnings/advisories
to investigate NzW
interfering with any visual cues on the left
(the product of normal
DDI. During this flight, maximum altitude
acceleration [Nz] and
and velocity were 15,480 feet and 542
gross weight [W]) effects knots (Mach 0.96). A maximum normal
in AAW component loads. load factor of 5.2 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 9.4 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.9 hours.
139
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #13
18 FEB 03
Purifoy
Flight #14
19 FEB 03
Purifoy
Flight #15
20 FEB 03
Purifoy
140
Objectives
Continue OBES PID
maneuvers.
Comments
Completed OBES PID maneuvering at
three flight conditions. Embedded GPS/
INS (EGI) was not functional. During this
flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 10,382 feet and 588 knots (0.96
Mach). A maximum normal load factor of
4 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA of
7.4 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.7 hours.
Complete OBES PID
Completed OBES PID for the AAW
maneuvers and continue subsonic envelope and performed repeats
of rolls with incremental stick inputs.
with loads model
During this flight, maximum altitude and
verification buildup
velocity were 11,639 feet and 597 knots
maneuvers.
(Mach 0.98). A maximum normal load
factor of 5 gs was achieved. A maximum
AOA of 7.2 degrees was obtained. Flight
time: 0.6 hours.
Performed 360-degree rolls, 5-g windup
Continue with loads
model verification
turns, and 4-g rolling pullouts. Repeated
maneuvers within the
OBES PID collective maneuvers at 5,000
AAW subsonic envelope. feet and Mach 0.85, and performed
rolls at 10,000 feet and Mach 0.7 for
comparison with Systems Research
Aircraft (SRA) flight results. During this
flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 11,215 feet and 562 knots (Mach
0.96). A maximum normal load factor of
4.6 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 8.4 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.8 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #16
20 FEB 03
Ewers
Objectives
Perform maneuver
repeats of OBES PID,
360-degree rolls, and
4-g rolling pullouts
at select AAW test
conditions and some
SRA test conditions.
Flight #17
04 MAR 03
Ewers
Flight #18
06 March 03
Purifoy
Flight #19
06 MAR 03
Purifoy
Comments
RFCS could not be engaged during
flight, impeding the execution of OBES
PID repeat maneuvers. Rolls and rolling
pullouts were performed at four AAW
flight conditions. Some rolling maneuvers
were also performed at two SRA flight
conditions. During this flight, maximum
altitude and velocity were 25,000 feet
and 600 knots (Mach 0.98). A maximum
normal load factor of 5.4 gs was
achieved. A maximum AOA of 9.2 degrees
was obtained. Flight time: 0.8 hours.
Research maneuvering was restricted
to straight and level flight. The pilot
commented that the airplane performed
well supersonically, with no trim issues.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 35,936 feet and 558
knots (Mach 1.28). A maximum normal
load factor of 2.6 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 6.5 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
Rolls were performed with incremental
stick inputs. RTB initiated due to chase
aircraft in-flight emergency. During this
flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 34,508 feet and 512 knots (Mach
1.16). A maximum normal load factor of
2.4 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 8.9 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.5 hours.
Performed flutter/ASE and loads clearance
maneuvers, and accomplished some AAW/
SRA rolls. During this flight, maximum
altitude and velocity were 40,303 feet
and 555 knots (Mach 1.23). A maximum
normal load factor of 5.2 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.8 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.7 hours.
141
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #20
06 MAR 03
Ewers
Objectives
Continue with supersonic
flutter/ASE and loads
clearance.
Flight #21
11 MAR 03
Ewers
Flight #22
11 MAR 03
Ewers
Flight #23
13 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #24
13 MAR 03
Purifoy
142
Comments
Performed flutter/ASE and loads
clearance maneuvers, and accomplished
a repeat small collective OBES PID
maneuver at 10,000 feet and Mach 0.85.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 28,797 feet and 567
knots (Mach 1.22). A maximum normal
load factor of 4.2 gs was achieved. A
maximum AOA of 11.8 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
Completed flutter/ASE clearance at
20,000 feet, and continued loads
clearance. During this flight, maximum
altitude and velocity were 25,668
feet and 565 knots (Mach 1.14). A
maximum normal load factor of 5.2 gs
was achieved. A maximum AOA of 7.15
degrees was obtained. Flight time: 0.4
hours.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 35,920 feet and 601
knots (Mach 1.33). A maximum normal
load factor of 4.6 gs was achieved. A
maximum AOA of 7.48 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 32,125 feet and 595
knots (Mach 1.34). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.19 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.3 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
Radio communications difficulties. During
this flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 32,049 feet and 593 knots (Mach
1.32). A maximum normal load factor of
4.07 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 7.98 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.5 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #25
13 MAR 03
Purifoy
Objectives
Continue with supersonic
flutter/ASE and loads
clearance.
Flight #26
18 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #27
18 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #28
19 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #29
19 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #30
20 MAR 03
Purifoy
Comments
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 21,305 feet and 601
knots (Mach 1.23). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.29 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.56 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
During this flight, maximum altitude and
velocity were 19,272 feet and 612 knots
(Mach 1.15). A maximum normal load
factor of 5 gs was achieved. A maximum
AOA of 7.7 degrees was obtained. Flight
time: 0.5 hours.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 24,504 feet and 648
knots (Mach 1.32). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.25 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 7.87 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 27,138 feet and 644
knots (Mach 1.31). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.1 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.2 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 27,603 feet and 632
knots (Mach 1.29). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.56 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.4 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
Flight cut short due to recurring built-in
test logic inspect (BLIN) 321 error. During
this flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 24,142 feet and 357 knots (Mach
0.83). A maximum normal load factor of
2.42 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 7.56 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.2 hours.
143
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #31
25 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #32
25 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #33
25 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #34
25 MAR 03
Purifoy
144
Objectives
Continue with supersonic
flutter/ASE and loads
clearance.
Comments
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 24,863 feet and 659
knots (Mach 1.22). A maximum normal
load factor of 2.88 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 7.78 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
Continue with supersonic During this flight, maximum altitude
flutter/ASE and loads
and velocity were 22,392 feet and 651
clearance.
knots (Mach 1.21). A maximum normal
load factor of 4.97 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.9 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
Continue with supersonic Maneuvers at 10,000 feet and Mach
flutter/ASE and loads
1.1 and 15,000 feet and Mach 1.2 were
clearance.
beyond the level flight envelope for
AAW. The 15,000-foot test points were
performed while diving at Mach 1.2 from
18,000 feet to 13,000 feet. The 10,000foot test points were performed at Mach
1.1 while diving from 13,000 feet to 8,000
feet. During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 23,489 feet and 649
knots (Mach 1.2). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.19 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 8.87 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
Continue with supersonic During this flight, maximum altitude
flutter/ASE and loads
and velocity were 23,334 feet and 649
clearance.
knots (Mach 1.21). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.22 gs was achieved. A
maximum AOA of 10.73 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #35
27 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #36
27 MAR 03
Purifoy
Flight #37
01 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #38
01 APR 03
Ewers
Objectives
Continue with supersonic
loads clearance &
aircraft/RFCS checkout.
Comments
Maximum lateral stick input for
maneuvers and the corresponding loads
produced were 75-percent stick, 30
aileron-hinge moment (AILHM), and 80
percent stick, 70 percent trailing-edgeflap hinge moment (TEFHM). During this
flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 21,067 feet and 643 knots (Mach
1.12). A maximum normal load factor of
4.28 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 11.8 degrees was obtained. Flight time:
0.3 hours.
Continue with supersonic Aborted in flight due to landing gear
flutter/ASE clearance.
malfunction. Upon gear retraction, the
chase pilot noted that the gear doors had
not fully closed and that the right main
gear had not fully retracted. The gear
was extended successfully for landing.
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 4,151 feet and 225
knots (Mach 0.36). A maximum normal
load factor of 1.4 gs was achieved. A
maximum AOA of 9.83 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.1 hours.
Continue with supersonic Pilot noted that there were significant
flutter/ASE clearance.
side-force excursions on the first
acceleration to test conditions. During
this flight, maximum altitude and velocity
were 29,991 feet and 700 knots (Mach
1.32). A maximum normal load factor of
2.95 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 7.86 degrees was obtained. Flight
time: 0.4 hours.
Continue with supersonic During this flight, maximum altitude
flutter/ASE and loads
and velocity were 25,345 feet and 696
clearance.
knots (Mach 1.25). A maximum normal
load factor of 4.09 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 7.32 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
145
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #39
03 APR 03
Ewers
Flight #40
03 APR 03
Ewers
Flight #41
03 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #42
09 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #43
09 APR 03
Purifoy
146
Objectives
Begin supersonic OBES
PID maneuvers.
Comments
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 33,403 feet and 534
knots (Mach 1.2). A maximum normal
load factor of 3.36 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 9.35 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours
Begin supersonic
During this flight, maximum altitude
air data calibration
and velocity were 29,152 feet and 654
maneuvers.
knots (Mach 1.35). A maximum normal
load factor of 3.76 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 7.55 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.7 hours.
Continue with supersonic Maneuver produced 80 percent AILHM
OBES PID maneuvers.
and disengaged for roll rate. Flightdeflection measurement system (FDMS)
was flickering during a high-bank-angle
turn. During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 35,509 feet and 590
knots (Mach 1.33). A maximum normal
load factor of 3.65 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 7.95 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
Continue supersonic
Left landing gear door was slow to close
OBES PID maneuvers
following takeoff. High loads were noted
and perform some
during OBES PID maneuvers. During this
intermediate test
flight, maximum altitude and velocity
condition loads model
were 29,604 feet and 565 knots (Mach
verification maneuvers. 1.21). A maximum normal load factor of
5.74 gs was achieved. A maximum AOA
of 8.42 degrees was obtained. Flight
time: 0.5 hours.
Continue supersonic
During this flight, maximum altitude
OBES PID maneuvers.
and velocity were 26,529 feet and 618
knots (Mach 1.26). A maximum normal
load factor of 5.22 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 6.35 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #44
09 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #45
09 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #46
10 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #47
10 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #48
10 APR 03
Purifoy
Flight #49
15 APR 03
Ewers
Objectives
Continue with supersonic
OBES PID, perform
some intermediate test
condition loads model
verification maneuvers
and some subsonic
loads model verification
and PID repeats.
Continue with supersonic
OBES PID maneuvers.
Comments
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 27,378 feet and 615
knots (Mach 1.27). A maximum normal
load factor of 4.42 gs was achieved.
A maximum AOA of 7.42 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
147
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #50
15 APR 03
Ewers
Flight #51
25 JUN 03
Purifoy
Flight #52
02 JUL 03
Ewers
Flight #53
15 JUL 03
Purifoy
Flight #54
15 JUL 03
Purifoy
Flight #55
15 JUL 03
Purifoy
Flight #56
21 JUL 03
Purifoy
Flight #57
28 JUL 03
Ewers
Flight #58
04 AUG 03
Purifoy
Flight #59
04 AUG 03
Ewers
Flight #60
04 AUG 03
Purifoy
148
Objectives
Complete supersonic
OBES PID maneuvers
and supersonic loads
model verification
maneuvers.
Comments
During this flight, maximum altitude
and velocity were 24,228 feet and 660
knots (Mach 1.12). A maximum normal
load factor of 4.65 gs was achieved. A
maximum AOA of 10.45 degrees was
obtained. Flight time: 0.3 hours.
Cross-country flight.
Cross-country flight.
Cross-country flight.
Cross-country flight.
Cross-country flight.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #61
14 DEC 04
Purifoy
Flight #62
14 DEC 04
Purifoy
Flight #63
15 DEC 04
Purifoy
Flight #64
15 DEC 04
Purifoy
Objectives
Comments
AAW Phase 2
Functional check
Performed FCF per 853-A1-F18ACflight and perform
NFM-700.1 modified checklist. Due to
subsonic deflection data problems with the transmitter, heads-up
maneuvers at 10,000
display (HUD) video was unavailable to
and 20,000 feet.
the control room. power lever angle (PLA)
position failure was generated and reset
successfully during the automatic flight
control system (AFCS)-Check portion of
the checklist. LOLEF Hall-Effect sensor
failed during the flight. Flight time: 1.2
hours.
Begin AAW Phase 2
All WUT and roll maneuvers were
control law development performed to the left. Postflight analysis
flights. Perform RFCS
was needed to clear the 3/4- and full-stick
reversion checks, ASE,
roll, therefore, the build up was only
WUTs, and roll buildup. carried on up to 1/2 stick. Flight time: 1.1
hours.
Perform RFCS reversion All WUTs and roll maneuvers were
check, ASE, WUT, and
performed to the left. Static pressure
roll buildup at 25,000
disengage occurred at the latter part of
feet and Mach 1.2.
the WUT, causing a 90-percent load on
Secondary objectives
the trailing-edge flap (TEF). The maneuver
were to complete the roll was repeated and completed, followed by
buildup at 15,000 feet
another static pressure disengage. Rolls
and Mach 0.95 and to
buildup carried out to 85- to 90-percent
perform RFCS reversion stick. RTB was called after Test Point
check and ASE at 10,000 (TP) 6 reversion check and ASE were
feet and Mach 0.95.
successfully completed. Flight time: 0.7
hours.
Perform supersonic
Roll buildup was performed up to
(Mach 1.1) RFCS
60-percent stick due to high loads (95
reversion checks, ASE, percent on the Aileron). Repeat of the
and WUTs at 20,000
stick, with full stick not cleared due
and 25,000 feet, and
to high normal acceleration on the roll.
roll buildup. Secondary Level acceleration at 10,000 feet was
objectives were to
performed from 0.6 to 0.9 Mach at ~3
complete the Mach
knots/second. Flight time: 0.6 hours.
0.95 WUT and roll
buildup, and to perform
a level acceleration
at 10,000 feet.
149
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #65
06 JAN 05
Purifoy
Flight #66
06 JAN 05
Purifoy
Flight #67
06 JAN 05
Purifoy
Flight #68
19 JAN 05
Ewers
150
Objectives
Perform Mach 1.1 roll
buildup at 20,000 feet,
and Mach 1.2 RFCS
reversion checks, ASE,
WUT, and roll buildup at
15,000 feet. Secondary
objectives were to
complete the subsonic
roll buildup at 10,000
feet and to perform a
subsonic tower fly-by.
Perform Mach 1.2
RFCS reversion check,
ASE, WUT, and roll
buildup at 20,000 feet,
and complete the roll
buildup at 15,000 feet.
Secondary objectives
were to complete
subsonic (Mach 0.90
to 0.95) roll buildup at
10,000 feet.
Continue Mach 1.2
roll buildup at 20,000
feet, and complete roll
buildup at 15,000 feet.
Secondary objectives
were to continue the
Mach 0.9 roll buildup
at 15,000 feet, repeat
the full-stick roll, and
perform Mach 0.85
RFCS Reversion check,
ASE, WUT, and roll
buildup at 10,000 feet.
Perform subsonic rolls,
back-to-back WUTs in
701E and RFCS, and
RFCS reversion checks
and ASE.
Comments
The 90-percent stick clearance
resulted in 98-percent stick input
causing a 106-percent load on the
right rudder. Roll buildup was stopped
at BINGO fuel after the -stick roll.
Tower fly-by was performed at about
100 feet above ground level (AGL)
from 0.4 to 0.6 Mach at ~3 knots/
second. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #69
19 JAN 05
Ewers
Flight #70
19 JAN 05
Purifoy
Flight #71
21 JAN 05
Ewers
Flight #72
21 JAN 05
Ewers
Flight #73
21 JAN 05
Purifoy
Flight #74
27 JAN 05
Ewers
Objectives
Perform a back-to-back
701E and RFCS WUT,
RFCS reversion check,
and ASE.
Comments
All WUT and ROLL maneuvers were
performed to the left. During back-toback 701E and RFCS, disengage was
observed after the RFCS maneuver was
completed. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
Perform RFCS reversion All roll maneuvers were performed left.
checks, ASE, back-toRoll buildup was carried on to the -stick
back WUT in 701E and
maneuver, which was followed by an
RFCS, and roll buildup.
impact pressure disengage. Flight time:
0.8 hours.
All roll maneuvers were performed to
Perform Mach 1.3 roll
buildup at 20,0000 feet, the left. Roll buildup was performed up
and complete Mach 1.1 to 60-percent stick, with a repeat of
the stick due to an impact pressure
roll buildup at 15,000
disengage during the first attempt. Flight
feet.
time: 0.5 hours.
Complete Mach 1.1 roll All WUT and roll maneuvers were
buildup at 15,000 feet
performed to the left. Roll buildup was
and RFCS reversion
started at 90-percent stick and completed
check, ASE, WUT, and
at full stick. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
Mach 1.3 roll buildup at
25,000 feet.
Complete subsonic
All roll maneuvers were performed left.
(Mach 0.85 to 0.95) roll The full buildup was accomplished with
buildup at 5,000 and
- to -stick, 60-percent bank-to-bank
10,000 feet, WUT and
maneuvers preceding the full-stick,
Mach 0.9 roll buildup
360-degree roll. RFCS could not be armed
on at 5,000 feet, and
and engaged during reversion check.
supersonic (Mach 1.1)
Flight time: 0.7 hours.
RFCS reversion check at
10,000 feet.
Complete subsonic
All WUT and roll maneuvers were
(Mach 0.95) roll buildup performed to the left. Roll buildup
at 5,000 feet, continue
was started at a 90-percent stick,
supersonic (Mach 1.3)
60-degree bank-to-bank maneuver,
roll buildup at 20,000
followed by a full-stick, 60-degree
feet, and perform RFCS bank-to-bank and a full-stick
reversion check, ASE,
360-degree roll. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
and WUT at Mach 1.1
and 10,000 feet.
151
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #75
27 JAN 05
Purifoy
Objectives
Complete the 90-percent
and full-stick left rolls
at Mach 1.3 and 20,000
feet, and (rolling pullout
[RPO]) buildup at 0.85
Mach and 15,000 feet.
Flight #76
24 FEB 05
Ewers
Perform portions of
FCF profile C to check
rigging of the left and
right inboard and
outboard leading-edge
flaps, complete fullstick left roll at Mach
1.3 and 25,000 feet,
complete 90-percent
and full-stick left rolls
at Mach 1.3 and 20,000
feet, RPO buildup at
Mach 0.85 and 15,000
feet, Northrop Grumman
subsonic deflection data
maneuvers, and RPOs
buildup at Mach 0.95
and 5,000 feet.
Complete the Northrop
Grumman supersonic
deflection data
maneuvers, perform
Mach 1.2 RPO buildup
at 25,000 feet, perform
right roll buildup
at Mach 0.85 and
15,000 feet, and RPO
buildup at Mach 0.85
and 5,000 feet.
Flight #77
24 FEB 05
Ewers
152
Comments
Flight was aborted shortly after takeoff.
During climb up, all landing gear doors
failed to close. Chase pilot reported all
three doors were wide open, that the
landing gear retracted properly, and that
nothing looked broken, dangling or bent.
Landing gear was lowered and locked
down successfully. Flight time: 0.2 hours.
Maneuvers at test points 12 and 15 were
performed to the left; all others were
performed to the right. Some maneuvers
had to be repeated. Flight time: 0.7 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #78
25 FEB 05
Ewers
Objectives
Perform RPO buildup at
Mach 1.2 and 15,000
feet, and at Mach 1.3
and 20,000 feet.
Flight #79
01 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #80
01 MAR 05
Purifoy
Flight #81
01 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #82
02 MAR 05
Purifoy
Comments
All RPO maneuvers were performed to
the right. TP 15 RPOs: Only the -stick
maneuver was completed at 4 gs, all
remaining were flown at 3 gs. The
buildup was carried on to full-stick, with
a couple maneuvers at 90-percent stick.
Flight time: 0.4 hours.
All RPOs were performed to the right.
Some roll maneuvers were performed to
the left. Roll buildup included 360-degree
rolls, stopping at the 65-percent stick
input that resulted in 93 percent load on
the aileron. RPO buildup was performed
from -stick to 90 percent stick, where
the left aileron reached 100 percent load.
Flight time: 0.5 hours.
All roll maneuvers were performed to
the right. RFCS disengaged occurred
at the -stick maneuver, resulting in
101-percent load on the left aileron at the
recovery. This maneuver was repeated
uneventfully. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
All maneuvers were performed to the
right. The -stick RPO maneuver was
repeated at 3 gs after the 4-g maneuver
resulted in disengage. The rest of the
maneuvers were completed at 3 gs.
Flight time: 0.5 hours.
All RPO and roll maneuvers were
performed to the right. WUTs were
performed to the left. RPO buildup
began with the -stick input, followed
by a 45-percent-stick maneuver, then
stopped after the -stick RPO due to
high loads on the aileron. Roll buildup
began at stick and was ended
with an 80-percent stick roll due to
high loads. Flight time: 0.6 hours.
153
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #83
02 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #84
02 MAR 05
Purifoy
Flight #85
03 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #86
21 MAR 05
Purifoy
154
Objectives
Perform Mach 1.1 roll
buildup at 15,000 feet
and 10,000 feet, Mach
1.3 roll buildup at
25,000 feet, Mach 0.95
roll buildup at 15,000
feet, RPO buildup, and
back-to-back WUTs.
Perform Mach 0.9 roll
buildup at 5,000 and
10,000 feet, Mach
0.95 roll buildup at
10,000 feet, Mach 0.85
back-to-back WUTs at
10,000 feet and 5,000
feet, Mach 1.1 and 1.3
WUTs at 25,000 feet,
and Mach 0.9 WUTs at
15,000 feet.
Perform back-to-back
WUTs at several test
points (Mach 1.2 and
1.3 at 20,000 feet, and
Mach 1.2 at 15,000
feet), and perform Mach
0.85 wing-set rolls at
10,000 feet.
Conduct OBES
maneuvers for ASE
research as part of the
AAW portion of FCF
profile LEF check.
Comments
All RPO and roll maneuvers were
performed to the right. WUTs were
performed to the left. Only the - and
-stick RPO maneuvers were completed
due to high loads. Flight time: 0.4 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #87
21 MAR 05
Purifoy
Objectives
Conduct OBES
maneuvers for ASE
research as part of AAW
Phase 1a, and OLEF
failure emulation.
Flight #88
29 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #89
29 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #90
29 MAR 05
Purifoy
Comments
All OBES maneuvers were initiated at
a 1-g, wings-level condition, with the
exception of the OLEF failure emulation.
Some of the OBES sweeps for the
stabilator and rudder were omitted.
Performed Minimax C-F sweeps, OBLEF
sweeps, aileron sweeps, OLEF failure
emulation, wing-drop maneuver, and PID
doublets. Flight time: 0.8 hours.
All WUTs were performed to the left. Rolls
were performed to the left and right.
Flight time: 0.5 hours.
155
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #91
29 MAR 05
Purifoy
Flight #92
31 MAR 05
Purifoy
Flight #93
31 MAR 05
Purifoy
Flight #94
31 MAR 05
Ewers
156
Objectives
Continue the RFCS
secondary control law
design overlay. Repeat
back-to-back WUTs at
Mach 0.95 and 10,000
feet, complete Mach 1.3
roll buildup at 20,000
feet, continue Mach 1.2
roll buildup at 15,000
feet, perform ASE, WUT,
and roll buildup at
Mach 1.1 and 25,000
feet, and perform ASE
and WUT at Mach 0.95
and 15,000 feet.
Continue the RFCS
secondary control law
design overlay. Perform
subsonic ASE, WUTs,
and roll buildup, and
complete the supersonic
roll buildup.
Continue the RFCS
secondary control law
design overlay. Perform
supersonic ASE, WUT,
and roll buildup, and
repeat back-to-back
WUTs at Mach 0.95 and
10,000 feet.
Continue the RFCS
secondary control law
design overlay. Perform
supersonic roll buildup,
supersonic RPO buildup,
and supersonic back-toback WUTs.
Comments
All WUTs were performed to the left.
Rolls were performed to the left and
right. During the first two WUTs, the
RFCS disengaged prior to completing the
maneuver. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
#, Date, Pilot
Flight #95
31 MAR 05
Ewers
Flight #96
11 APR 05
Ewers
Objectives
Comments
Complete the RFCS
Final AAW Phase 2 research flight. Roll
secondary control law
maneuvers were performed to the left
design overlay. Perform and right. All RPOs were performed to the
a repeat of the - and
right. Flight time: 0.5 hours.
full-stick rolls at Mach
0.95 and 5,000 feet, and
supersonic RPO buildup.
AAW Follow-on Flights
Collect wing-deflection The deflection-data pattern and POPUs
were performed successfully, and the
data through a
subsonic series was performed twice.
predetermined flight
Flight time: 0.9 hours.
profile at 20,000
feet and Mach 0.9.
Secondary objectives
were to perform a series
of Mach 0.85 pushover-pull-ups (POPUs) at
10,000 and 20,000 feet.
157
Appendix 2:
Aircraft Specifications
This three-view drawing shows the basic dimensions of the modified F-18 used in the AAW
flight research program. (NASA)
158
Appendix 3:
AAW Configuration
Management Plan
This document sets forth the configuration management and control procedures and policies for development and flight test of the AAW flight research aircraft. As specified by the AAW Annex to the WL/NASA DFRC/AFFTC Flight
Research Memorandum of Understanding, the AAW Program is a joint USAF/
NASA program wherein the Wright Laboratorys Flight Dynamics Directorate
will modify a NASA aircraft and the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
will flight test the aircraft. The WL/FI will serve as overall program manager
and will contract to modify the aircraft. The NASA DFRC will serve as the
Responsible Test Organization and will have flight safety responsibility.
Because of this split of authority in the program it is necessary to be very
specific as to the required participation of each organization to include how
that participation will change as the program progresses.
159
flight. (Since the AAW aircraft belongs to NASA DFRC and they have flight
safety authority, clearance to fly the AAW aircraft shall be issued by NASA.)
163
Advise
AAW
Program
Office
Modified
Aircraft
Transfer
AAW
Research
Board
Advise
NASA DFRC
Flight Project
Office
PCCB for
Design & Fab
Information Exchange
PCO
PCCB for
Flight Test
Out-of-Scope
Modification
Authorized
Modified
Aircraft Ready
for Flight Test
(NASA DFRC
Procedures)
Proceed with
In-Scope
Change
PDR, CDR
PCI
Approved
Disapproved
Wright Lab
CCB
MDA/
NAA DFRC
Modification
164
Appendix 4:
Allen, Michael J., and Ryan P. Dibley. Modeling Aircraft Wing Loads from
Flight Data Using Neural Networks. NASA TM-2003-212032 (September
2003).
Allen, Michael J., Andrew M. Lizotte, Ryan P. Dibley, and Robert Clarke.
Loads Model Development and Analysis for the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic
Wing Airplane. NASA TM-2005-213663 (March 2005).
Anderson, Robert A. Concept Layout for LE Flap System Modifications for
the Active Aeroelastic Wing Program. McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
(June 1997).
Anderson, Robert A. Design Requirements for LE Flap System Modifications
for the Active Aeroelastic Wing Program. McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
(June 1997).
Anderson, Robert A., Eric Reichenbach, Ron Hess, Kenneth Griffin, Peter
Flick, Dana Purifoy, Denis Bessette, Larry Myers, Dave Voracek, John Baca,
Marty Brenner, Bill Lokos, Jim Guffey, Dave Riley, and Edmund Pendleton.
Summary of Lessons Learned from the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight
Research Program. U.S. Industry Aerospace Flutter and Dynamics Council
Meeting, Atlanta, GA (May 2005).
Baldelli, Dario H., Richard Lind, and Martin Brenner. Nonlinear Aeroelastic/
Aeroservoelastic Modeling by Block-Oriented Identification. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 28, no. 5 (SeptemberOctober 2005):
pp. 1,0561,064.
Boehm, Ben, Peter Flick, Brian Sanders, Chris Pettit, Eric Reichenbach,
and Scott Zillmer. Static Aeroelastic Response Predictions of the Active
Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Flight Research Vehicle. Paper 2001-1372, AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Seattle, WA (April 2000).
166
168
170
Regenie, Victoria A., Donald Gatlin, Robert Kempel, and Neil Matheny.
The F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle: A High Angle of Attack Research
Testbed Aircraft. NASA TM-104253 (September 1992).
Reichenbach, Eric Y. Development and Validation of F/A-18 Wing Preliminary
Design Finite Element Model. McDonnell Douglas (April, 1997).
Voracek, David, Ed Pendleton, Eric Reichenbach, Kenneth Griffin, and Leslie
Welch. The Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research Program: Summary of
Technical Program & Phase I Flight Research. NATO RTO AVT Applied
Vehicle Technology Meeting on Novel Vehicle Concepts and Emerging
Vehicle Technologies, Brussels, Belgium (April 2003).
Wieseman, Carol D., Walter A. Silva, Charles V. Spain, and Jennifer Heeg.
Transonic-Small-Disturbance and Linear Analyses for the Active Aeroelastic
Wing Program. 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics & Materials Conference, Austin, TX (April 2005).
Young, Peter, and Ronald J. Patton. Comparison Test Signals for Aircraft
Frequency Domain Identification. AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics 13, no. 3 (MayJune 1990).
Yurkovich, Rudy. Optimum Wing Shape for an AFW. Paper 95-1220-CP,
36th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
New Orleans, LA (April 1995).
Zillmer, Scott. Integrated Multidisciplinary Optimization for Aeroelastic
Wing Design. Air Force Wright Laboratory TR-97-3087 (August 1997).
Zillmer, Scott. Integrated Structure/Maneuver Design Procedure for Active
Aeroelastic Wings, Users Manual. Air Force Wright Laboratory TR-973037 (March 1997).
171
Bibliography
172
Bibliography
173
Heeg, Jennifer, Charles V. Spain, and J.A. Rivera. Wind Tunnel to Atmospheric
Mapping for Static Aeroelastic Scaling. AIAA 2004-2044, presented at the
45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA (April 2004).
Lizotte, Andrew M., and William A. Lokos. Deflection-Based Aircraft
Structural Loads Estimation with Comparison to Flight. AIAA-2005-2016,
presented at the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics & Materials Conference, Austin, TX (April 2005).
Lokos, William A. Test Plan for the F-18 AAW (TN853) Wing Strain
Gage Loads Calibration Test. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
(March 2001).
Lokos, William A., Candida D. Olney, Natalie D. Crawford, Rick Stauf,
and Erich Y. Reichenbach. Wing Torsional Stiffness Tests of the Active
Aeroelastic Wing F/A-18 Airplane. NASA TM-2002-210723 (May 2002).
Pendleton, Edmund. Back to the Future: How Active Aeroelastic Wings are
a Return to Aviations Beginnings and a Small Step to Future Bird-Like
Wings. NATO RTO AVT Symposium on Active Control Technology for
Enhanced Performance Operational Capabilities of Military Aircraft, Land
Vehicles and Sea Vehicles, Braunschweig, Germany (May 2000).
Pendleton, Edmund, Dave Voracek, Eric Reichenbach, and Kenneth Griffin.
The X-53: A Summary of the Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research
Program. AIAA-2007-1855, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Honolulu,
HI (April 2007).
Perry, Boyd, Stanley R. Cole, and Gerald D. Miller. Summary of an Active Flexible
Wing Program. Journal of Aircraft 32, no. 1 (JanuaryFebruary 1995).
Reichenbach, Eric. Explanation of AAW Wing Torsional Stiffness Test Results
and Impact on Achieving AAW Flight Research Objectives. Provided by
Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files
(November 2001).
Tulinius, Jan. Active Flexible Wing Aircraft Control System. U.S. Patent
5,082,207, filed July 16, 1990, issued January 21, 1992.
174
Bibliography
Welch, Leslie M. Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight
Report: Flights 1-5. NASA (November 2002).
Welch, Leslie M. Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight
Report: Flights 8-11. NASA (January 2003).
Welch, Leslie M. Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) NASA F/A-18 #853 Flight
Report: Flights 17-25. NASA (March 2003).
White, S.L. Active Flexible Wing Technology Demonstration: A Proposal in
Response to NASA Research Announcement NRA-94-0A-02Advanced
Concepts for Aeronautics. Rockwell International, North American
Aircraft Division (February 25, 1994).
Zillmer, Scott. Integrated Maneuver Load Control (MLC) for Active Flexible
Wing (AFW) DesignFinal Briefing. Boeing North American Aircraft
Division (May 21, 1997).
Other Resources
Bessette, Denis E. Memo re: Assignment of Dryden Aircraft to the Active
Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Program. Provided by Dave Voracek, NASA
Dryden Flight Research Center, from personal files (1995).
Brenner, Marty, William Lokos, John Carter, and David F. Voracek. Objectives
and Requirements DocumentActive Aeroelastic Wing (AAW). AAW840-ORD-v1.0, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (July 1998).
Brown, Alan. AAW makes first flight. The X-Press 44, no. 4 (November 2002).
175
Brown, Alan. AAW notes from video interview. From personal files of Alan
Brown (January 12, 2004).
Gelzer, Christian, and Jay Levine. Re-Wright: Wing design of the future
borrows from original flyer. The X-Press, Special Active Aeroelastic Wing
Edition (December 17, 2003).
Jordan, Holly. Active Aeroelastic Wing flight research vehicle receives X-53
designation. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661,
December 11, 2006.
Levine, Jay. Key Roles: AAW taps into Drydens knowledge, experience and
flight research savvy. The X-Press, Special Active Aeroelastic Wing Edition
(December 17, 2003).
Levine, Jay. Phase Two: Effectiveness of wing twist for roll control will be
explored. The X-Press: Special Active Aeroelastic Wing Edition (December
17, 2003).
Levine, Jay, and Sarah Merlin. Phase One: First flights set the stage for advances
in AAW technology. The X-Press: Special Active Aeroelastic Wing Edition
(December 17, 2003.
Lockheed Martin. LMTAS Statement of Work for F-16 Active Aeroelastic
Wing Flight Demonstration Program. Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft
Systems, Fort Worth, TX, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center, from personal files (1995).
McKay, M.J. Memo re: Active Flexible Wing Technology Flight Test
Demonstration Proposal 94-1028. Rockwell International, North
American Aircraft Division (February 25, 1994).
NASA. Back to the Future: Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research.
NASA Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/
FS-061-DFRC.html, December 2009.
NASA. Notes on Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Technology Previous Efforts/
Opportunities. Provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center, from personal files (March 1996).
176
Bibliography
NASA. Ewers, Richard G., research pilot biography, NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Pilots/
bd-dfrc-p025.html, February 2012.
NASA. Purifoy, Dana D., research pilot biography, NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Pilots/
bd-dfrc-p013.html, September 2010.
Rivas, Mauricio. Active Aeroelastic Wing Project Dryden Independent Review,
Flight Operations Engineering. Briefing to AAW Flight Readiness Review
Board, provided by Dave Voracek, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center,
from personal files (March 2002).
Szalai, Kenneth J., George K. Richey, and James P. Brady. DRAFT
Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Program Annex to the Memorandum
of Understanding Between USAF Wright Laboratory (WL), Air Force
Flight Test Center (AFFTC), and NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
(DFRC). January 1996.
177
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the many people who helped make this book
possible. First of all, thanks to Tony Springer, NASA Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, for sponsoring this project. I am grateful for the efforts
of many people at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center including, but not
limited to, Leslie Williams, Carla Thomas, Dick Ewers, and Karl Bender.
Thanks to Chris Yates, Ben Weinstein, and Kurt von Tish at Media Fusion for
preparing the manuscript for publication. Special thanks to David Voracek, Ed
Pendleton, Al Bowers, Ken Griffin, Pete Flick, and Bill Lokoswho reviewed
the material for technical accuracyand, especially, to Sarah Merlin for copyediting the final manuscript.
178
179
Index
A
Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) research program
budget, costs, and funding for, xi, 18, 1920,
79, 85, 87, 89, 95, 96, 100, 101, 12225,
12729
configuration control and change control
procedures, 16264, 164
contract solicitation, 12223
contributions of, 18, 53
follow-on projects, 68
integrated product-development teams
(IPTs), 7879, 125, 13032
lessons learned. See lessons learned from
AAW program
management and organizational structure,
7579, 12232, 15965
resources and support for, 7679, 13032
responsible test organization (RTO), 14, 75,
7778, 159, 16162
scope, schedule, and time frame, xxi, 125,
135
start of, 19
success of, xi, 57, 65, 81, 83, 90, 134
team members, 74, 7678, 76, 78, 125
wind tunnel testing, 4043, 41
See also flight testing
Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) technology
advantages and benefits of, ixx, xi, 18, 53,
81, 83, 8586
applications for, xi, 18, 6872, 68, 69, 70,
72, 81, 84, 8586, 90, 91, 133
181
182
Index
Phase 2 testing, 63
roll control, 2, 1415, 49, 52, 92
Roll Mod 1 program, 16
wing flexibility and aileron reversal, 2, 87, 92
aircraft design and development
aerodynamic loads and, ix, 1, 11921, 133
applications for AAW technology, xi, 18,
6872, 68, 69, 70, 72, 81, 84, 8586, 90,
91, 133
bird wing studies and wing-shaping
techniques, v
early concepts, iv, vix, vii, viii
ISMD tools and, 43, 6062, 65, 82, 99,
11821
structural loads management, ix, x, xi,
6364, 81, 8283
TSO technique and, 1
airfoils
AAW technology and design of, 69, 8586
flow force prediction, 1
high-aspect-ratio airfoils, ix
thickness of, ix
Wright gliders, vi, vii, vii, viii
Air Force, U.S.
AAW program role, x, 19, 74, 7579, 125,
13032, 15962
Air Force Academy fly-by, 59, 148
applications for AAW technology, 7172,
8586
Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle (ESAVE)
program, 7172, 72
HiMAT program, 1
Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory (AAFDL), 12
Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC)
AAW program role, 76, 7778, 159
AAW test bed studies, 14, 15, 16, 87
expertise and resources at, 77
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)/Air Force
Wright Laboratories (AFWL)/Air Force Wright
Aeronautical Laboratory (AFWAL)
B
BAE Systems/Lockheed Martin Control Systems,
25, 2728, 76
Barfield, Finley, 164, 165
Bessette, Denis E.
AAW program contributions, 18, 53
AAW program role, 75, 76
CCB role, 164
PCCB role, 165
test bed airframe, 21
bird-flight studies, v, vi, vi
blended-wing-body concepts, 70, 71
Boeing Company and Boeing Phantom Works
AAW control law development, 6065, 75,
79, 99100, 13334
AAW program role, x, xi, 74, 7579, 125
AAW test bed modifications, xi, 2023, 23,
89
AAW test bed studies, 16, 18
AFW technology programs, 11
applications for AAW technology, 69, 7071,
70
183
C
C-17 aircraft, 71
Centennial of Flight celebrations, 59, 148
Chen, Tony, 2829
Clarke, Robert, 118
Class II modification process, 126, 163
Class I modification process, 163
Configuration Control Board (CCB), 15960,
164
contract solicitation, 12223
Control Designers Unified Interface (CONDUIT),
43, 6061, 100, 134
control laws
AAW control law development and
application, x, xi, 4445, 75, 79, 8283,
99100, 13334
aeroelastic equations of motion and
development of, 67
AFW control laws, 5, 610, 75
184
Index
Crawford, Natalie, 37
Critical Design Review (CDR), 160, 162
Crowder, Marianne, 37
D
data collection. See instrumentation and
sensors
da Vinci, Leonardo, v, vi, vii
Dayton International Air Show, 59, 148
DeAngelis, Mike, 164
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS),
128
Dibley, Ryan, 118
dirty shoestring and lateral control stick inputs,
6364
drag, ix, x, 81
Dryden Flight Loads Laboratory (FLL), 3040,
31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 8485
Dryden Flight Research Center
AAW control law development, 6065, 75,
134
AAW program role, x, 19, 75, 7778, 79,
131, 15962
AAW test bed modifications, 23
AAW test bed studies, 13, 14, 16
configuration control and change control
procedures, 16264, 164
Control Designers Unified Interface
(CONDUIT), 43, 6061, 100, 134
expertise and resources at, 7778
F-18 control law development, 4345, 45
flight testing location, x, 77
Full-scale Advanced Systems Testbed (FAST),
67, 135
MATLAB, 44
Physical Configuration Control Board for test
flight, 16162, 165
RTO role, 14, 75, 77, 159, 16162
Structural Analysis Facility, 37
E
Edwards Air Force Base, 77. See also Dryden
Flight Research Center
Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle (ESAVE) program,
7172, 72
Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability program, 12
Evans, Robert, 164
Ewers, Rick
air show displays and cross-country flights,
59, 148
experience of, 5152
F-18 flight experience, 51, 52
functional check flights (FCFs), 52, 136
Phase 1 testing, 5257, 13648
Phase 2 testing, 65, 14957
project pilot role, 50, 51, 135
Experimental Aircraft Association, Air Venture
2003, 59, 148
F
F-15 Advanced Control Technology for Integrated
Vehicles (ACTIVE) test bed, 25, 28
F-16 aircraft
AAW test bed studies, 1215, 14, 15, 77, 87
Agile Falcon wing design program, 11
replacement for, 11
F-18 High-Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV),
1617, 17, 19, 77
F-18 Hornet
AAW test bed modifications, x, 1718,
1930, 23, 24, 8182, 8485, 89, 91, 94
AAW test bed studies, 1518, 17, 18, 77, 89
aeroelastic behavior, 15
control laws, 4345, 45, 61, 84
designation change, x n13
hinged wings on, 19, 19n45
leading-edge flap drive system (LEFDS), 24,
82, 89, 92, 95
performance envelope limitations, 112
185
186
Index
G
General Dynamics, 11
Griffin, Kenneth Ken, 1112, 75, 164
Grissom Air Reserve Base air show, 59, 148
ground testing
cost of, 18
ground vibration testing, x, 31, 36, 38, 39,
8485, 105
lessons learned, 1036
Grumman Aircraft Corporation, 1
Guffey, James, 76
H
Hernandez, Joe, 22
High-Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV), 1617,
17, 19, 77
Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT)
demonstrator, 1
High-Speed Civil Transport program, 11, 71
187
I
Icarus, v
instrumentation and sensors
analysis of data from, 84
cost of, 101
electronics bay (E-Bay) for, 28
flight-deflection measurement system
(FDMS), 2830, 29, 31, 33
lessons learned, 101
loads calibration test, 31, 3335, 35, 85
location and installation of, x, xi, 22, 23, 24,
28, 29, 82, 101
integrated product-development teams (IPTs),
7879, 125, 13032
Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC)
project, 135
Integrated Structure/Maneuver Design (ISMD)
procedure, 43, 6062, 65, 82, 99, 11821
Integrated Test Block (ITB) maneuvers, 4849
Interaction of Structures, Aerodynamics, and
Controls (ISAC) program, 7
J
Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST)
program, 11
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition, 11
K
Kokomo air show, 59, 148
Kolonay, Ray, 165
Krieger, Bob, 53
L
Langley, Samuel Pierpont, viiiix
Langley Flight Research Center
AAW program role, 75, 78, 79, 131
AAW test bed studies, 16
aeroelastic equations of motion development,
67
AFWL collaboration with, 7677
188
ARTS system, 78
High-Speed Civil Transport program, 11
Interaction of Structures, Aerodynamics, and
Controls (ISAC) program, 7
See also Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT),
Langley Flight Research Center
lateral control. See roll motion and lateral control
lateral control stick inputs and the dirty
shoestring, 6364
lessons learned from AAW program, 86132
flight testing, 10712
flight-test results, 11321
ground testing, 1036
integrated product-development teams
(IPTs), 125, 13032
program management, 12232
test bed modifications, 94102
test bed suitability, 8793
Lockheed Martin
AAW program, interest in, 78
AAW test bed studies, 1215, 87
AFW technology fighter concept, 11
AFW technology programs, 11
applications for AAW technology, 69
ESAVE program, 71
Next Generation Bomber, 69
Tactical Aircraft Systems, 14
Lockheed Martin Control Systems. See BAE
Systems/Lockheed Martin Control Systems
Lockheed Sanders, 16
Lokos, William, 64
Love, Michael, 69, 70
M
maneuver loads, 2, 5, 6, 10, 10, 43, 95
Manly, Charles, viiiix
MATLAB, 44, 99, 100
McDonnell Douglas
AAW test bed modifications, 1920
AAW test bed studies, 1518
Index
N
n3x aircraft, 68
NASA Structural Analysis (NASTRAN) finite
element analysis program, 36, 100
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
AAW program role, x, 19, 74, 7579, 125,
13032, 15962
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, xi
Aviation Safety Program, 135
Naval Air Weapons Center, 76
Naval Weapons Development Center, 16
Navy, U.S.
AAW program role, 19, 75
VECTOR program, 12
Neufeld, Dave, 32
Next Generation Bomber, 69
Nicholson, Mark, 22, 23
Nielsen, Paul D., 78
North American Aircraft Division, 23, 76, 78
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Research and Technology Organization,
Applied Vehicle Technology Panel, 69
Nunnelee, Mark, 32
O
onboard excitation system (OBES) maneuvers,
4750, 48, 5557, 59, 106, 13942, 146
48, 15455
Oshkosh air show, 59, 148
P
Pak, Chan-Gi, 37
parameter identification (PID) flights, x, 4750,
48, 5557, 61, 82, 85, 102, 108, 113,
13942, 14648
parameter identification (PID) software, 2728,
83
Parker, Brian, 165
Paul, Donald Don, 78, 164
Pendleton, Edmund W. Ed
AAW program contributions, 18
AAW program resources and support, 79
AAW program role, 75, 77, 78, 134
AAWRB role, 164
applications for AAW technology, 7071,
134
CCB role, 164
PCCB role, 165
Perry, Boyd, 164, 165
Phantom Works. See Boeing Company and
Boeing Phantom Works
Physical Configuration Control Boards (PCCBs),
16062, 165
Physical Configuration Inspection (PCI), 160, 163
pilots, 5052, 51, 135
pitch
AAW technology and pitch control, 81
canard elevator to control, vii
control laws and pitch accelerations and
rates, 48, 61
instrumentation and sensors for data
collection on, 22, 47, 49
Prazenica, Chad, 37
Preliminary Design Review (PDR), 160, 162
189
Q
Quantz, Dallas, 22
Quatch, Thang, 45
R
Redd, Tracy, 164
reports, technical, 68, 16671
research flight control system (RFCS), 1617,
19, 28, 5960, 65
responsible test organization (RTO), 14, 75, 77,
159, 16162
Riley, David, 62, 76
Rockwell F-22 Raptor, 23
Rockwell International
AAW program role, 131
AAW test bed studies, 12, 14, 15
AFW model testing, xii, 35, 4
AFW technology studies, 11, 11, 61, 75
ATF design, 25
Boeing merger with, 78, 131
HiMAT program, 1
ISMD method development, 61
North American Aircraft Division, 23, 76, 78
Rockwell X-31 aircraft, 12, 13, 77, 88
roll maneuvers
190
Index
S
Schroeder inputs, 40
Schwanz, Robert, 165
Sentif, Andre, 23
sideslip
measurement of, 55
prediction of, 118
roll maneuvers and, 62, 63, 65, 11415
test bed asymmetry, 118
wing design to counteract, vii
Wright glider issues, vivii
simulation testing
AAW test bed, x
AFW testing, 78
control law development and, 13334
correlation of flight-test data and, 65,
8384, 85
database development from, 8485, 109
hot-bench simulation, 78
wing stiffness testing, 36
Smolka, Jim, 165
Southwest Research Institute, 76, 79
speed
for test flights, x, 57, 63, 65
wing design and, ix
stability and control, vii. See also roll motion and
lateral control
strain gauges, 29, 30
structural mode interaction (SMI) tests, 38, 40,
106
Systems Research Aircraft (SRA), 5556, 77,
113, 14041
T
tail and tail surfaces
AAW technology and design of, 70
airflow deflection into, 118
instrumentation and sensors for data
collection on, 24
roll motion, lateral control, and, 2, 61
V
VECTOR program, 12
Videogrammetric Model Deformation System, 42
Voracek, Dave
AAW program role, 57, 57, 75
control law development, 57
PCCB role, 165
W
weight
AAW technology and, x, xi, 133
AFW and aircraft weight reduction, 2, 3, 5
wing stiffness and, ix, xi
Whiteman Air Force Base, 59, 148
wind tunnel testing
AAW model testing, 4043, 41, 75
AFW model testing, xii, 26, 4, 7, 75, 79
database development from, 8485
flow force prediction, 1
wind tunnel to atmospheric mapping (WAM),
42
191
192
Index
X
X-31 aircraft, 12, 13, 77, 88
X-53 test bed
designation change, x, 66, 67, 135
leading-edge flap drive system (LEFDS), 24
sideslip predictions, 118
See also Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) test
bed
Y
yaw
control laws and yaw rates, 48
instrumentation and sensors for data
collection on, 22, 47, 49
rudder design to counteract, vii, 118
test bed asymmetry and, 118
Yurkovich, Rudy, 164
Z
Zillmer, Scott, 71
193
ISBN 978-1-62683-012-7
90000
9 781626 830127
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC
NASA SP-2013-609