X-Planes: Lockheed Martin X-62 VISTA

The government gave this aeroplane an X number in 2021 and then spent nearly nineteen million dollars on it without once writing the number down.

The federal award record carries 73 transactions against this aircraft, running from 21 February 2014 to 30 September 2025 and totalling 29,085,924.37 dollars [USAspending]. Not one of them calls it the X-62A. They call it VISTA, or the variable stability in-flight simulator, or the airframe [USAspending]. The designation was allocated on 14 June 2021, according to the register of designations allocated since August 1998 that Andreas Parsch compiles from data the Department of Defense has released [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum], and by the date of this article, 1,637 days later, the accounting system that pays for the aeroplane has still never used it.

None of this argues that the designation is unimportant. It measures where a designation lives. The register records it, the press releases use it, the school that flies the aeroplane is proud of it, and the contracting officers who buy its maintenance have no use for it at all [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023] [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org] [USAspending].

This is the sixty-third article in the X-Planes series, following the X-1, the X-2, the X-3, the X-4, the X-5, the X-6, the X-7, the X-8, the X-9, the X-10, the X-11, the X-12, the X-13, the X-14, the X-15, the X-16, the X-17, the X-18, the X-19, the X-20, the X-21, the X-22, the X-23, the X-24, the X-25, the X-26, the X-27, the X-28, the X-29, the X-30, the X-31, the X-32, the X-33, the X-34, the X-35, the X-36, the X-37, the X-38, the X-39, the X-40, the X-41, the X-42, the X-43, the X-44, the X-45, the X-46, the X-47, the X-48, the X-49, the X-50, the X-51, the X-52, the X-53, the X-54, the X-55, the X-56, the X-57, the X-58, the X-59, the X-60, and the X-61.

The previous article established that the register stops being a primary source at the X-61A, because the compiler’s note states that for allocations after October 2018 the official description is no longer releasable to the public and prints the reconstructed ones in blue [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. This is the second article on the far side of that line and the finding holds. Every register count in this article is taken from every row of the copy the compiler last updated on 23 August 2026. Of the 31 rows whose designation begins with the letter X, 21 carry official wording, 9 do not, and 1 is partly official, and this is one of the 9. That copy is later than this article’s date. The version current on that date, the compiler’s update of 11 August 2025 as the Internet Archive captured it on 6 December 2025, held 526 rows, twenty-nine of them X rows, and lacked fifteen later rows that include the X-68A and the X-76A [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum, 11 August 2025]. Under that version the X rows divided into 21 with official wording, 8 without and none partly official, 25 of the twenty-nine carried an engines cell, and the medians were 110 characters across the X rows and 95 across the register. The row’s unofficial wording, its length rank, its verb and its engine are the same in both versions.

The reconstruction reads as follows.

VISTA; NF-16D redesignated after upgrade for “Skyborg” program

That is 62 characters including the popular name and 55 without it, against a median of 109 across the X rows and 92 across the whole register, each measured without the popular name and the compiler’s note marker. Only 2 of the 31 X rows carry a shorter one.

One Word in This Row Appears Nowhere Else in the Register

The word redesignated appears in exactly 1 row of all 539, and this is it.

The idea is not unique. 8 of the 31 X rows describe an aircraft modified from an existing one. What is unique is the verb. The other 7 say highly modified, or converted, or derivative of, or upgrade. Only this one says the aeroplane was renamed. That claim concerns paperwork where the others describe metal, and no other row in the register makes it.

That is fitting, because the allocation accompanied an upgrade of the aeroplane’s computers and software, and its airframe was left as it was. The aeroplane had been flying as VISTA for 29.2 years when it became an X-plane. It was not built for the number, and the upgrade that accompanied the number replaced its simulation system and added a system for autonomous control of the simulation, with no rebuild of the airframe [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org].

The Research Question

The aeroplane is not the subject and an article that treated it as one would have nothing to say.

The X-62A is a two-seat F-16D. Its span is the F-16’s span, its wing area is the F-16’s wing area, its engine is a production fighter engine, and its performance is tabulated in the ordinary reference works [General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon]. Nothing about the airframe is a research question and this article will not pretend otherwise.

What is a research question is whether one aeroplane can be made to behave like a different aeroplane, closely enough that the pilot flying the first cannot tell it from the second. That is a control problem, it has an exact statement, and it has an exact condition for solvability that was written down in a Technical Memorandum of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, abbreviated NASA, dated 18 October 1967, twenty-four years before this aeroplane first flew as VISTA [Erzberger, Analysis and Design of Model Following Control Systems by State Space Techniques, NASA Technical Memorandum X-61189, 18 October 1967]. The condition concerns the host aeroplane’s controls and not its performance. For that reason the vehicle drops out of the argument almost immediately, and this article spends its arithmetic on a matrix where a flight envelope might be expected.

The sections below establish four things. The condition for exact model following is a subspace containment, and it fixes how many independent controls an in-flight simulator needs and in which axes. The determinant that decides whether those controls are independent is a distance, being the separation between two surfaces measured in chords. The frequency at which the simulation runs out of authority is published, in a table of deflection and rate limits that NASA released in 1979, and for one surface it falls below a fighter’s short period. And an in-flight simulator cannot reproduce an aeroplane quicker than its hardware, which makes the set of aeroplanes it can imitate one-sided in a way no amount of software will fix.

The economics and the paperwork are read as evidence in themselves, because the contract record for this aeroplane answers a question that neither of the previous two articles could ask. The X-60A’s money and the X-61A’s money paid for a development programme with a beginning and an end. This money pays to keep one aeroplane flying, in calendar-year increments, for a decade, and it therefore measures what an instrument of this kind costs to own.

Programme Origin

The aeroplane and its number have two different origins, twenty-nine years apart, and this section takes them in turn. The aeroplane is a Block 30 F-16D modified to carry a second flight control system [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org], and it first flew in that modified form in April 1992 [General Dynamics X-62 VISTA], on 9 April by one account [Flight Test Files, Viper X, Vintage Aviation News]. No source consulted dates any flight of the production airframe before its modification, so every interval this article measures from April 1992 is measured from the first flight as VISTA. The number was allocated on 14 June 2021 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The four parts of this section read the name the government gives the aeroplane, the engine its register row names against the engine its block number implies, the status letter it carried before the X, and the interval between its first flight and its designation.

The Name Does Not Spell Its Own Acronym

VISTA has been expanded 7 different ways in the federal award record for this one aeroplane, across 55 occurrences. The count covers the government’s descriptions of its contracts [USAspending].

Expansion	Occurrences	Keeps the word stability
Variable stability in-flight simulator and test aircraft	23	yes
Variable stability in-flight simulator	21	yes
Variable stability in-flight simulator test aircraft	5	yes
Variable in-flight stability test aircraft	2	yes
Variable stability inflight simulator test aircraft	2	yes
Variable in-flight simulator test aircraft	1	no
Variable stability in-flight test aircraft	1	yes

54 of the 55 keep the word stability and 1 drops it. The contracting system is consistent about the one word and inconsistent about everything else, including whether the aeroplane is a simulator, a test aircraft, or both, and including where the hyphen goes.

Now count the letters. Variable, stability, in-flight, simulator, test, aircraft gives V, S, I, S, T, A. The acronym is VISTA and the expansion spells VSISTA. The word stability, which the award record preserves in 54 of 55 descriptions, contributes no letter at all. In that expansion the S of stability is silent.

And the aeroplane’s prime contractor has now fixed it. Lockheed Martin’s announcement of the artificial-intelligence flights writes the name as Variable In-flight Simulation Test Aircraft [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023], which does spell VISTA, letter for letter, with nothing left over. The repair was made by deleting the word that never fitted.

The consequence is not cosmetic. The original name says the aeroplane’s variable quantity is its stability. The corrected name says the variable quantity is the simulation. Those are different claims about what the machine is for, and the second is the better description of an aeroplane that now spends its time hosting autonomous control software. The letters did not change. The subject did.

The federal award record, which has not adopted the correction, is the largest body of text this article searched in which the older expansion still stands. Whether the change of wording was a considered decision or an ordinary drift in a marketing department is not something the public record settles, and this article does not claim it was deliberate. What is measured is that the two names differ, that the difference is exactly the word the acronym never contained, and that the money still uses the old one.

A Block Number That Means One Engine and a Cell That Names Another

The engines cell is the one part of this register row not about simulation, and it contradicts the aeroplane’s block number.

The row reads 1 Pratt & Whitney F100 [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. 27 of the 31 X rows carry an engines cell at all, and this is the only one of them naming that engine.

The aeroplane is a Block 30, and the Air Force’s block convention gives a Block 30 a General Electric engine. When the Alternate Fighter Engine programme brought a second supplier to the F-16 in the nineteen eighties, the two inlets and the two engines were distinguished by the last digit of the block number. Blocks ending in zero take the General Electric F110 and blocks ending in two take the Pratt and Whitney F100 [General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon] [General Electric F110] [Pratt and Whitney F100]. A Block 30 with an F100 is, by that convention, a contradiction in terms.

Both statements are true and the resolution is that the aeroplane was re-engined. It flew its thrust-vectoring work behind a General Electric F110-GE-100 fitted with an axisymmetric vectoring exhaust nozzle, completing 95 test flights before that programme ended in 1994 [X-62 Variable-Stability In-Flight Test Aircraft, Air and Space Forces Magazine weapons and platforms entry]. A Pratt and Whitney thrust-vectoring programme was planned next and was cancelled, and the aeroplane was converted to a standard F100-PW-229 and returned to its operators in June 1997 [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net]. The trade press records the same engine in its data table [X-62 Variable-Stability In-Flight Test Aircraft, Air and Space Forces Magazine weapons and platforms entry].

So the register’s engines cell is right and the block number is right, and the two disagree because the aeroplane outlived the convention that named it. This article cannot say which inlet the aeroplane now carries, and the inlet is the part of an engine change that a block number encodes. The public record does not settle it.

The rest of the airframe is assembled from three blocks as well. The prime contractor describes it as a modified F-16D Block 30 Peace Marble Two aircraft upgraded with Block 40 avionics [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023], and the dorsal fairing that houses the variable-stability computers comes from the Israeli configuration, while the heavyweight landing gear is derived from the Block 40 and exists so that the aeroplane can simulate types with higher landing sink rates than an F-16 tolerates [General Dynamics X-62 VISTA].

That last detail is the first sign of what this article is about. A landing gear was changed not to improve the aeroplane but to widen the set of other aeroplanes it can pretend to be. The modification is in the simulation’s envelope rather than in the aircraft’s.

The Letter It Carried Before the X

Before 2021 the aeroplane was an NF-16D, and the N is a status prefix with a precise meaning. It denotes special test, permanent, and the prefix is applied when the modifications are so drastic that returning the aircraft to its original configuration, or converting it to a standard operational one, is beyond practicable or economic limits [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org] [Designations of U.S. Military Aircraft, including the modified mission and status prefix letters].

In-flight simulation at the two American test pilot schools was described in the open literature nine years before this aeroplane flew as VISTA [Knotts and Parrag, In-Flight Simulation at the U.S. Air Force and Naval Test Pilot Schools, AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, 1983], and the school has continued to publish what it builds, including a ground-based handling-qualities simulator described by William Gray, whom the school’s announcement of the redesignation names as the aeroplane’s chief test pilot [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org], [Gray and Kemper, Creating an Aircraft Handling Qualities Simulator for the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, U.S. Air Force Test and Evaluation Days, 2009] and the integration of uncrewed flight test into its curriculum by the authors of the papers on this aeroplane [Abdulrahim, Nguyen, Taranto, Cotting and Stephens, Integrating Uncrewed Aircraft System Flight Test Education Into the USAF Test Pilot School Curriculum, AIAA SciTech 2025].

The N is therefore a stronger statement about the aeroplane than the X is. The X says the aircraft is used for research. The N says it cannot practicably go back. The aeroplane carried the stronger letter until 2021 and the weaker one for the last 4.48 years.

And the X did not replace a claim about the aeroplane. It replaced a claim about its owner’s intentions. The school that operates it said at the time that the redesignation reflected the research done on the aircraft over nearly thirty years and acknowledged the upgrade programme then under way [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org]. A redesignation that reflects the past is a different object from one that authorises a future, and this series has met the second kind repeatedly and the first kind once.

The Aeroplane Is Twenty-Nine Years Older Than Its Number

The X-62A first flew as VISTA in April 1992 and was designated on 14 June 2021, which from 9 April 1992 is 10,658 days, or 29.2 years [General Dynamics X-62 VISTA] [Flight Test Files, Viper X, Vintage Aviation News] [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. By the date of this article it has been flying as VISTA for 33.7 years and has carried an X number for 4.48 of them.

\[F = \frac{T_n - T_d}{T_n - T_0}\]

That fraction is 13.3 percent. Seven-eighths of this aeroplane’s flying life as VISTA happened before it was an X-plane, and it is still flying, so the fraction is still falling relative to what it would have been had the number come first.

This series has now met five distinct orderings between a designation and the aeroplane it names, and setting them beside one another is instructive because the register’s chronology conceals all of them.

Ordering	Case
The number comes first and the aeroplane follows	the X-1 and most of the early series
The number comes after the aeroplane has stopped flying	the X-53
The number is allocated and no aeroplane is ever built	the X-54
The number follows the first flight by months	the X-55
The number follows the first flight by three decades and the aeroplane is still flying	the X-62A

The fifth is the only one in which the designation describes a change of purpose rather than an event in the aeroplane’s life. Nothing happened to the metal in June 2021 that had not happened many times before. What changed was the identity of the thing the machine was built to deceive, and the register records that change in the one row of 539 that uses the word redesignated.

What It Costs to Keep an Instrument Flying

The previous two articles read a contract record that paid for a development programme. This one reads a contract record that pays rent on an aeroplane.

The X-60A’s money outlived its publicity by three years and ended by paying to ship equipment, as the X-60 article reports. The X-61A’s money stopped forty-seven days after the flight that mattered while the period of performance ran on for another four years, as the X-61 article reports. Neither of those shapes appears here. This record runs in calendar-year increments to two contractors for more than a decade, so it can answer a question the other two could not, the cost of owning an in-flight simulator.

73 transactions across 18 awards total 29,085,924.37 dollars, from 21 February 2014 to 30 September 2025, a span of 11.6 years [USAspending].

Every total in this section is a reassembly and not a restatement. The distinction earns one line of notation, because the reliability of the section rests on it.

\[\sum_k v_k = V\]

The registry publishes the left side and the right side independently. The transactions are filed one at a time by the contracting office as money moves and the award total is a separate field. Agreement between them is therefore evidence for both, and disagreement would be a defect in one. That position is stronger than quoting either alone. 17 of the 18 agree to the cent. The one that does not is excluded because part of it falls past this article’s date [USAspending].

Calendar year	Obligated	Share of the total
2014	514,070.00 dollars	1.8 percent
2015	653,933.00 dollars	2.2 percent
2016	56,620.01 dollars	0.2 percent
2018	3,946,393.66 dollars	13.6 percent
2019	10,000.00 dollars	0.0 percent
2020	1,843,037.33 dollars	6.3 percent
2021	6,020,876.27 dollars	20.7 percent
2022	6,183,543.77 dollars	21.3 percent
2023	3,816,669.74 dollars	13.1 percent
2024	840,780.59 dollars	2.9 percent
2025	5,200,000.00 dollars	17.9 percent
All years	29,085,924.37 dollars	100.0 percent

Two contractors hold all of it. Calspan takes 23,611,921.77 dollars, which is 81.2 percent, and Lockheed Martin takes 5,474,002.60 dollars, which is 18.8 percent. Each share in this section, including the third column of the table above, is one subtotal divided by the whole.

\[\rho_p = \frac{V_p}{V_{\text{all}}} , \qquad \rho_{\text{Calspan}} = \frac{23{,}611{,}921.77}{29{,}085{,}924.37} = 0.812 , \qquad \rho_{\text{Lockheed Martin}} = \frac{5{,}474{,}002.60}{29{,}085{,}924.37} = 0.188\]

The split follows the division of labour the press releases describe, with the laboratory responsible for the simulation system and the prime contractor for the airframe and the autonomy interface [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023].

The Redesignation Is Visible in the Money

Obligations run at 1,390,629.73 dollars a year before 14 June 2021 and 4,404,494.90 dollars a year after it, a ratio of 3.17 [USAspending].

The average over the whole record is 2,506,165.10 dollars a year, and quoting that alone would conceal the finding. A reader would compute that figure first. It is 1.76 times smaller than the rate the aeroplane has been running at since the redesignation.

That is a comparison of averages over unequal periods and it should be read as one. The earlier period includes two years with almost no obligations at all and one, 2018, with nearly four million. The step is real and the smoothness is not, and an aeroplane bought a calendar year at a time shows a lumpy record.

The first obligation after the redesignation came 31 days later, being 1,350,000.00 dollars for the third phase of the simulation system upgrade [Contract FA930421F5020, VISTA Simulation System upgrade Phase III, Department of the Air Force to Calspan]. The redesignation and the upgrade are the same event seen from two records.

And the largest single obligation in the record is the most recent one. 5,200,000.00 dollars were obligated on 30 September 2025, which equals the 2025 row of the table and is therefore 17.9 percent of everything by the share relation above, and falls 68 days before this article’s date. It is dated the last day of a fiscal year, which this article notes without inferring anything from it.

The record also carries 22 modifications obligating nothing and 5 deobligating a total of 68,585.40 dollars [USAspending]. A zero-dollar modification is an administrative action against an open award and differs from spending. The previous article established that distinction and this record confirms it.

6 transactions fall after this article’s date and are excluded at the source rather than in the prose, carrying 782,854.00 dollars between them. One of those is the only place in the entire record where the designation X-62A appears, so the exclusion is no formality. An article that filtered in the sentence rather than in the data would have reported the opposite of this record’s most interesting property.

The Register’s Unofficial Sentence Is Corroborated by a Different Government Record

The compiler marks the X-62A’s description as not official Department of Defense wording, and the description attributes the upgrade to the Skyborg programme [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum]. The sentence is a reconstruction from open sources, and the compiler says so.

The contract record confirms it independently. 108 days after the redesignation, the Air Force obligated 799,956.00 dollars to Lockheed Martin under a line whose description names HAVE Autonomous Air Combat Operations Phase Two Skyborg [Contract FA930421F5034, HAVE Autonomous Air Combat Operations Phase II Skyborg, Department of the Air Force to Lockheed Martin]. The word first appears in the 40th of the record’s 73 transactions, and the record never once uses the designation.

This deserves careful statement because the result is epistemic and not factual. The previous article could establish that the register had stopped being a primary source and could not do anything about it. This one can, for one sentence, because the accounting system and the designation register are independent records maintained for unrelated purposes and they agree. That does not make the sentence official. It makes it corroborated, which is a weaker claim and a more useful one.

Sizing From First Principles

There is no airframe to size here, because the airframe is a production F-16D and The Research Question above sets it aside. What can be sized from first principles is the instrument, being the number of independent controls a variable-stability system needs in order to reproduce another aeroplane exactly. This section takes the published list of what the second flight control system commands, derives from the model-following condition that the number required is three per axis, finds that the list supplies three per axis, and then shows that the geometry of the two lifting controls decides how well conditioned those three are.

What the Variable Stability System Commands

All of this article’s mathematics turns on one list, and the list is published.

In-flight simulation on this aeroplane is done by a second flight control system running in parallel with the F-16’s own, engaged once the aircraft is airborne, with a safety pilot in the back seat who can take control at any moment. That second system commands, with essentially full authority, the left and right horizontal stabilators, the ailerons, the thrust, the rudder and the trailing-edge flaps [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org]. The surfaces it does not command are the leading-edge flaps and the speedbrakes [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net].

Count them by axis, because one pair of surfaces can supply two controls. The two stabilators, driven together and driven differentially, are two independent controls, and so are the trailing-edge surfaces, which on an F-16 are flaperons and which the second system commands both symmetrically and asymmetrically [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net].

The literature on this aeroplane takes the same system as its subject. The programmable feel system that drives the two sticks was published the year the aircraft first flew [Siracuse and Govindaraj, The VISTA and F-16 Programmable Feel System, AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, 1992], and the simulation model built round the modified aeroplane was published twice in the following four years [McKeehen, Genesis Simulation of a Modified VISTA and F-16, AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, 1995] [McKeehen, Cord and Nguyen, Modified VISTA and F-16 Piloted Simulation Study, AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, 1996]. The modern configuration is published in the same way, with the simulation system, the autonomy interface and the flight testing each the subject of a separate paper [Haus, Konopka and Faught, The New VISTA Simulation System Design and Implementation, AIAA SciTech 2023] [Schiavone, Babala, Hartwig and Cotting, X-62 VISTA System for the Autonomous Control of the Simulation, Design and Implementation, AIAA SciTech 2023] [Haus, Ground and Flight Testing the New VISTA Simulation System, AIAA SciTech 2023].

That claim deserves its one line of algebra, because it is doing real work. The symmetric and differential commands are a change of basis on the two surface deflections, and the matrix that performs it is invertible.

\[\begin{bmatrix} \delta_s \\ \delta_d \end{bmatrix} = \tfrac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \delta_L \\ \delta_R \end{bmatrix} , \qquad \det = - \tfrac{1}{2} \ne 0\]

The argument needs only a non-zero determinant. Two surfaces yield two independent commands exactly when the map between them can be undone, so the pair contributes two columns to the control effectiveness matrix. A single all-moving tail, or two surfaces mechanically ganged, would contribute one, and the next sections show what a missing column costs. So the system has a symmetric stabilator, a symmetric flap and a throttle in the longitudinal axis, and a differential stabilator, an aileron and a rudder in the lateral-directional axis. 3 in each.

An ordinary fighter, idealised in the same way, gives its pilot 1 control in pitch and 2 in roll and yaw. The idealisation is that the stick moves one surface in pitch and that the throttle is not part of the flight control system.

That difference is one of kind. The next section shows that it separates a problem that has an exact solution from one that does not, and the number 3 recurs there for a reason.

Model Following as the Mathematics of Pretending

The programme calls what this aeroplane does the Model Following Algorithm, and the prime contractor lists it as a deliverable alongside the simulation system and the autonomy interface [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023] [Caraway, Harris and Cotting, VISTA X-62A Model Following Algorithm Overview, AIAA SciTech 2023]. The phrase is a term of art with a definition, a solvability condition and a computable failure, and all three are older than the aeroplane.

The Statement

Two linear systems are in play. The first is the host aeroplane, whose state is what the air and the metal actually do. The second is the model, which exists only inside a computer and which the host is required to imitate [Stevens, Lewis and Johnson, Aircraft Control and Simulation] [McRuer, Ashkenas and Graham, Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control].

\[\dot{x} = A x + B u , \qquad \dot{x}_m = A_m x_m + B_m u_m\]

The simulation is achieved by a control law that watches both systems and drives the host’s surfaces [Model reference adaptive control].

\[u = K_x x + K_m x_m + K_u u_m\]

Substituting one into the other gives the closed loop.

\[\dot{x} = \left( A + B K_x \right) x + B K_m x_m + B K_u u_m\]

For the host’s state to equal the model’s state at every instant, given that the two start together, the closed loop must be the model. Matching the two expressions term by term gives a pair of conditions on the gains.

\[B \left( K_x + K_m \right) = A_m - A , \qquad B K_u = B_m\]

Notice what has happened. The unknowns are gains, the equations are linear in them, and the question is no longer about aeroplanes at all. It is the question of whether two matrix equations have a solution, and that question has a standard answer.

The Condition Is a Subspace Containment

A linear equation of the form $ B X = Y $ has an exact solution if and only if every column of $ Y $ lies in the column space of $ B $. The projector onto the complement of that column space is built from the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse [Moore-Penrose inverse] [Projection, the linear algebraic operation].

\[\Pi = I - B B^{+}\]

And the conditions for exact model following are that this projector annihilates both right-hand sides.

\[\Pi \left( A_m - A \right) = 0 , \qquad \Pi B_m = 0\]

Nothing more is required. A NASA Technical Memorandum of October 1967 states and proves the result [Erzberger, Analysis and Design of Model Following Control Systems by State Space Techniques, NASA Technical Memorandum X-61189, 18 October 1967]. When the conditions hold, the gains follow immediately, and they are the least-squares solution because in this case the least-squares solution is exact [Asseo, Application of Optimal Control to Perfect Model Following, Journal of Aircraft, 1970].

\[K_x + K_m = B^{+} \left( A_m - A \right) , \qquad K_u = B^{+} B_m\]

That difference is the quantity the rest of this article is about, so it receives a name.

\[\Delta A = A_m - A\]

Read the first condition in words. The simulation demands a change of dynamics, being the difference between the model’s dynamics matrix and the host’s. Every column of that difference must be producible by some combination of the host’s controls. The host’s aerodynamics, its inertia, its speed and its altitude appear nowhere except through $ B $, and the model’s realism appears nowhere except through $ A_m $. The condition is about reach and not about power.

What It Costs When the Condition Fails

The instrument was built on this literature and the literature knew it. One of Calspan’s other in-flight simulators, the Total In-Flight Simulator [Calspan], published its model-following system and the flight verification of it within five years of the memorandum [Pruner and Reynolds, The Total In-Flight Simulator Design and Capabilities, AIAA Simulation and Support Conference, 1968] [Motyka, Rynaski and Reynolds, Theory and Flight Verification of the TIFS Model-Following System, Journal of Aircraft, 1972]. The mathematics and the aeroplanes that use it are the same generation, and the X-62A is a late member of that line, long after its first. This article does not know how many machines stand between the two, because counting them would mean settling what makes an aeroplane a variable-stability aeroplane as distinct from merely a research one, and none of the sources read draws that line.

The literature calls the exact case perfect model following and the approximate case real model following, and it has done so since the nineteen seventies [Morrow and Balasubramanian, Real Model Following Control, Journal of Aircraft, 1975] [Lutze, A Perfect Explicit Model Following Control Solution to Imperfect Model Following Control Problems, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, 1989]. Tuning does not decide the distinction. Whether a projector is zero decides it.

When it is not zero, the least-squares gains leave a residual.

\[E = \Pi \left( A_m - A \right)\]

And the error between the host and the model obeys an equation that repays a second reading [Anderson and Schmidt, Error Dynamics and Perfect Model Following With Application to Flight Control, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 1991].

\[\dot{e} = \left( A + B K_x \right) e + E x_m + \left( B K_u - B_m \right) u_m\]

Setting the derivative to zero says how large that error settles to, and the expression contains the residual and nothing the designer can still choose.

\[\dot{e} = 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad e_\infty = - \left( A + B K_x \right)^{-1} \Pi \, \Delta A \, x_m\]

The first term of the error equation is a stable homogeneous response and a designer can make it as fast as the hardware allows. The second term is not. It is driven by the model’s state, which means that the harder the simulated aeroplane is manoeuvring, the larger the error, and no choice of $ K_x $ removes it because $ E $ does not contain $ K_x $. A model-following error of this kind cannot be tuned away. It can only be designed away, by changing $ B $, which means by changing which surfaces the system is allowed to move.

A Counting Bound States the Design in One Line

The projector’s rank is fixed by the rank of the control effectiveness matrix.

\[\operatorname{rank} \Pi = n - \operatorname{rank} B \; \ge \; n - m\]

For the conditions to hold for an arbitrary model, the projector must be zero, and that requires the host’s controls to span the whole state space. Written out for each axis of an aeroplane, this is a counting statement about hardware.

System	Dynamic states in the axis	Independent controls	Rank of the projector
An ordinary fighter, in pitch	3	1	2
An ordinary fighter, in roll and yaw	3	2	1
The variable stability system, in pitch	3	3	0
The variable stability system, in roll and yaw	3	3	0

The three dynamic states in the longitudinal axis are speed, angle of attack and pitch rate, the pitch attitude being kinematic and therefore carried along by the others without needing to be commanded. The three in the lateral-directional axis are sideslip, roll rate and yaw rate, with bank angle kinematic in the same way.

And the variable stability system has exactly three independent controls in each. That is not a coincidence and it is not generosity. It is the smallest number that makes the projector vanish, and a system with two would face a one-dimensional subspace of demanded dynamics that no gain could produce.

This is why the second flight control system commands the throttle. On an ordinary fighter idealised as above a throttle is no flight control. Here it is one, because the speed equation is one of the three and no aerodynamic surface the second system commands can change the axial force independently of the normal force and the pitching moment. The engine is not propulsion in this argument. It is the third column of a matrix.

The Bound Is Sufficient and Not Necessary, and Saying So Costs Nothing

The counting above matches every state, and a simulation does not have to. What the pilot is given is an output rather than a state, being an attitude, a rate, a load factor and whatever the instruments show, and matching an output is a weaker demand than matching everything behind it [Stevens, Lewis and Johnson, Aircraft Control and Simulation].

\[y = C x \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \left( I - \left( C B \right) \left( C B \right)^{+} \right) C \, \Delta A = 0\]

The projector has shrunk. It is now built from the product of the output matrix and the control matrix and no longer from the control matrix alone, and that product has at most as many rows as there are outputs. A simulation that only has to reproduce pitch rate and normal acceleration is asking for less than one that has to reproduce the whole state vector.

So three controls per axis is sufficient and it is not necessary, and this article claims only the sufficiency. What the weaker condition buys is a warning rather than a licence. An output-matched simulation is exact in what the pilot is shown and free to be wrong in everything else, and the states it is free to be wrong in are still driving the aeroplane. The mismatch does not disappear. It moves somewhere the pilot is not looking.

One Control Short, and Which Half of the Aeroplane Goes Wrong

A rank deficiency of one sounds like a small defect and it is not, because the deficient direction is not distributed evenly over the aeroplane.

Take the longitudinal short period alone, in the two states angle of attack and pitch rate, and ask a variable-stability system to turn a conventionally stable host into a statically unstable and lightly damped model. That is the characteristic task, because an aeroplane with dangerously poor flying qualities is what a test pilot school wants its students to meet in a machine with a safety pilot in it [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org].

The short period in those two states has a standard form, and the one below is written with the angle-of-attack equation’s pitch-rate coefficient set to unity, the usual normalisation [Etkin and Reid, Dynamics of Flight, Stability and Control] [Cook, Flight Dynamics Principles] [USAF Test Pilot School, Flying Qualities Phase, Chapter 4, Equations of Motion] [USAF Test Pilot School, Flying Qualities Phase, Chapter 8, Dynamics].

\[\begin{bmatrix} \dot{\alpha} \\ \dot{q} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} Z_\alpha & 1 \\ M_\alpha & M_q \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ q \end{bmatrix}\]

A two-by-two matrix carries its frequency and damping in its trace and its determinant, so a pair of matrices can be read as two aeroplanes rather than as eight numbers.

\[\omega_n = \sqrt{\det A} , \qquad 2 \zeta \omega_n = - \operatorname{tr} A\]

The numbers below are representative rather than measured. The host and the model are plausible short-period pairs chosen to make the arithmetic legible, the control effectivenesses are in the ratio a horizontal tail and a trailing-edge flap stand in, and nothing in the conclusion depends on the particular values, only on the fact that a tail makes much more moment than lift and a flap makes much more lift than moment. The published F-16 aerodynamic data is tabular and graphical, with no closed form [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979], so the matrices below are not computed from it. The host, the model and the two pitch controls are these, with the tail as the first column of the control matrix and the trailing-edge flap as the second.

\[A = \begin{bmatrix} -1.20 & 1.00 \\ -8.00 & -1.50 \end{bmatrix} , \qquad A_m = \begin{bmatrix} -0.60 & 1.00 \\ 2.00 & -0.40 \end{bmatrix} , \qquad B = \begin{bmatrix} -0.09 & -0.20 \\ -9.00 & -1.00 \end{bmatrix}\]

Read through the relation above, the two matrices describe two quite different aeroplanes. The host has a determinant of 9.8 per second squared, which is positive, so it is an ordinary oscillatory short period at 3.13 radians per second with a damping ratio of 0.431, giving a damped period of 2.22 seconds. The model’s determinant is -1.76, which is negative, and a negative determinant means the pair is not oscillatory at all.

\[\det A < 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \lambda = \tfrac{1}{2} \left( \operatorname{tr} A + \sqrt{\operatorname{tr}^2 A - 4 \det A} \right) > 0 , \qquad t_2 = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda}\]

The model diverges, with a root of 0.918 per second and a time to double amplitude of 0.755 seconds. A negative determinant is negative longitudinal static stability, which the school’s textbook gives a chapter and which the F-16 itself has below Mach 1 [General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon] [USAF Test Pilot School, Flying Qualities Phase, Chapter 5, Longitudinal Static Stability] [Relaxed stability]. That is the aeroplane the student is asked to fly, and the simulation’s job is to move the determinant by 11.56 per second squared, from stable to divergent, using the surfaces of an aeroplane that is neither.

With two independent pitch controls the projector has rank 0 and the residual is zero to machine precision. With the tail alone the projector has rank 1, and a projector onto the complement of a single column has a closed form that makes the asymmetry visible before any arithmetic is done.

\[\Pi = I - \frac{b \, b^{\mathrm{T}}}{b^{\mathrm{T}} b}\]

The projector removes the direction the control points in and leaves everything perpendicular to it untouched. A tail column points almost entirely along the pitching-moment axis, so what survives the projector is almost entirely the lift axis. The residual is therefore not spread over the problem. Writing the surviving fraction row by row says so in numbers.

\[\eta_\alpha = \frac{\left\| \left( \Pi \, \Delta A \right)_\alpha \right\|}{\left\| \Delta A_\alpha \right\|} , \qquad \eta_q = \frac{\left\| \left( \Pi \, \Delta A \right)_q \right\|}{\left\| \Delta A_q \right\|}\]

Row of the dynamics matrix	Change demanded	Change unreachable	Fraction unreachable
Angle of attack	0.6 per second	0.5 per second	83.3 percent
Pitch rate	10.06 per second squared	0.005 per second squared	0.05 percent

With one pitch control the pitch-damping row can be retuned almost exactly and the lift row cannot be touched at all. The ratio between the two failures is 1,677.

The ratio is the physical content of the design, and no numerical curiosity. A horizontal tail is a moment generator. Deflected, it changes how the aeroplane rotates and it barely changes how much lift the aeroplane makes. So a simulator built round a tail alone can imitate any pitch stiffness and any pitch damping it likes, and it cannot imitate a different wing.

The quantity that stays the host’s own is the one the pilot feels in the seat.

\[\frac{n_z}{\alpha} = \frac{\bar{q} \, S \, C_{L_\alpha}}{W}\]

Every term on the right belongs to the host. The dynamic pressure is the host’s speed and altitude, the area is the host’s wing and the slope is the host’s aerodynamics. A pitch control changes none of them, so the acceleration a given angle of attack produces is whatever the F-16 produces, whatever the model says it should be.

And the error a single control leaves does not decay. For a steady one-radian angle of attack demanded of the model, the residual drives a steady angle-of-attack error of 7.6 percent and a steady pitch-rate error of 0.409 per second. A student flying that simulation is holding a different angle of attack from the one the model is holding, permanently, and no gain in the system removes it.

A symmetric trailing-edge flap is the missing column. It makes lift with comparatively little moment, and adding it to the matrix takes the unreachable subspace from one dimension to none. This is a reason for the variable stability system to command the trailing-edge flaps, and the reason is visible in the arithmetic, although the designers’ reasoning appears in no source consulted.

The Determinant Is a Distance

Two lifting controls only count as two if they act at different places, and the determinant shows it in a form that has no aerodynamics in it.

A control surface that produces a normal force at a station aft of the centre of gravity produces a pitching moment in proportion, with the moment arm measured in mean aerodynamic chords [Etkin and Reid, Dynamics of Flight, Stability and Control] [Nelson, Flight Stability and Automatic Control].

\[M_f = - \frac{\ell_f}{\bar{c}} Z_f , \qquad M_h = - \frac{\ell_h}{\bar{c}} Z_h\]

Substituting into the two-by-two block that maps the two lifting controls onto normal force and pitching moment gives a determinant that collapses.

\[\det \begin{bmatrix} Z_f & Z_h \\ M_f & M_h \end{bmatrix} = \frac{Z_f Z_h}{\bar{c}} \left( \ell_f - \ell_h \right)\]

The control effectivenesses appear as a product and the geometry appears as a difference. Make either surface twice as powerful and the determinant doubles. Move the two surfaces to the same station and the determinant is zero however powerful they are, because two forces applied at one point are one force.

Independent command of lift and pitching moment is therefore a fact about where the surfaces are, and the quantity that decides it is the separation between their centres of pressure measured in chords. For an F-16, with the flap on the wing trailing edge and the tail well aft, that separation is estimated here at about 0.6 chords, an inference from the published layout rather than a measurement.

Conditioning is what the determinant understates. A matrix can be invertible and still useless, because the deflections required to achieve a given change scale with the inverse of its smallest singular value [Condition number] [Singular value decomposition].

\[\kappa = \frac{\sigma_{\max}}{\sigma_{\min}}\]

The relation behind that sentence is displayed below, because the article has so far treated deflection as free when it is the scarcest thing the aeroplane has. The gains solve the matching condition, the deflection is the gains acting on the state, and the worst case over states of a given size is bounded by the demanded change divided by the smallest singular value.

\[u = \left( K_x + K_m \right) x , \qquad \left\| K_x + K_m \right\| \le \frac{\left\| \Delta A \right\|}{\sigma_{\min} \left( B \right)}\]

Separation between the two lifting controls	Condition number
0.6 chords, being the order of the actual layout	7.17
Half of that	12.13
Two hundredths of a chord, being effectively coincident	157.8

Halving the separation worsens the conditioning by a factor of 1.69, and driving it to zero sends the condition number through two orders of magnitude on its way to infinity. The deflections required to simulate a given aeroplane grow in the same proportion, and the next section shows that deflection is the resource this aeroplane runs out of.

The airframe fixes the separation, and no simulation software can change it. A variable-stability aeroplane whose lifting controls happened to sit close together would be a poor instrument no matter how good its computers were, and the arithmetic says by how much.

The Column That Makes the Projector Vanish Is the Column That Runs Out First

Solving the worked example for its gains rather than for its residual gives a result the rank argument does not predict.

With two columns the control matrix is square and invertible, so the matching condition $ B \left( K_x + K_m \right) = A_m - A $ is solved by the inverse, and the angle-of-attack column of the gains comes from the angle-of-attack column of the demanded change.

\[\Delta A = A_m - A = \begin{bmatrix} 0.60 & 0 \\ 10.00 & 1.10 \end{bmatrix} , \qquad \begin{bmatrix} \gamma_s \\ \gamma_f \end{bmatrix} = B^{-1} \begin{bmatrix} 0.60 \\ 10.00 \end{bmatrix} = \frac{1}{-1.71} \begin{bmatrix} -1.00 & 0.20 \\ 9.00 & -0.09 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 0.60 \\ 10.00 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -0.8187 \\ -2.6316 \end{bmatrix}\]

The simulation of the previous section therefore demands 0.82 degrees of symmetric tail and 2.63 degrees of symmetric flap for every degree of angle of attack. Both are gradients rather than deflections, and the quotient is what matters. The flap is asked for more than three times as much, because it is the weaker lift producer of the two and must supply all of the change in lift.

Surface	Demanded by a five-degree excursion	Published limit	Share of the limit
Symmetric horizontal tail	4.09 degrees	25 degrees	16.4 percent
Symmetric flap	13.16 degrees	21.5 degrees	61.2 percent

The flap is 3.74 times closer to its stops than the tail is to its own. Carrying the excursion up until something saturates, the flap reaches its limit at 8.17 degrees of angle of attack and the tail would not reach its own until 30.5 degrees. A deflection is the gradient times the excursion, a surface saturates where that product reaches its published limit, and the table and both angles follow.

\[\delta = \left| \gamma \right| \alpha , \qquad \alpha_{\text{sat}} = \frac{\delta_{\max}}{\left| \gamma \right|} , \qquad \frac{21.5}{2.6316} = 8.17 , \qquad \frac{25}{0.8187} = 30.5 , \qquad \frac{2.6316 \times 5 / 21.5}{0.8187 \times 5 / 25} = \frac{0.6120}{0.1637} = 3.74\]

That reverses the intuition the rank argument leaves. The tail is the powerful surface and the flap is the afterthought, and the counting bound requires only that the flap be there. The deflection arithmetic says the flap is what runs out, so the envelope of aeroplanes this machine can imitate is set by its weakest control rather than by its strongest.

The bound of the previous relation is loose here. It gives 53.4 against a realised gain norm of 2.76, a factor of 19.4, because the worst-case direction the bound assumes is not the direction this particular simulation demands. A bound that is loose by a factor of nineteen is a bound and not an estimate, and the realised value is the one the table above uses.

Dependent Systems

The controls counted under Sizing From First Principles act through hardware the simulation did not choose, and that hardware is where the vehicle returns to the argument. The second flight control system drives the production surfaces, and the deflection limits, rate limits and lags of the production actuators were published in 1979 [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979]. This section reads those limits as frequencies, takes the actuator lag as a floor under the delay of every simulated aeroplane, shows that the same rate limits make the instrument subject to the oscillation it is used to study, and ends with the human being and the rating scale through which every result is reported.

The Frequency at Which the Simulation Runs Out of Authority Is Published

NASA released the numbers that bound this aeroplane’s simulation in 1979, twelve years before it flew as a simulator, in a report that never names the type in its title.

Technical Paper 1538 studies the stall and post-stall behaviour of a fighter with relaxed longitudinal static stability, and states in its appendix on aerodynamic data that the data came from low-speed wind-tunnel tests of subscale models of the F-16 [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979]. Its Table 1 gives the mass, the inertias, the wing geometry and the surface deflection limits. Its Appendix A gives the actuator lag and the rate limit of every surface but the speedbrake, and those two numbers are what decide how fast a simulation can be. The speedbrake carries a deflection limit in Table 1 and no actuator anywhere, which is consistent with its not being a flight control.

A Rate Limit Is a Frequency in Disguise

A surface commanded to oscillate must move fastest as it passes through zero, and the peak rate is the product of the amplitude and the frequency [Slew rate].

\[\delta \left( t \right) = \hat{\delta} \sin \omega t \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \left| \dot{\delta} \right|_{\max} = \hat{\delta} \omega \le R\]

Divide the rate limit by the deflection limit and the result has the dimensions of a frequency. It is the highest frequency at which the surface can still reach its stops.

\[\omega_c = \frac{R}{\delta_{\max}}\]

Above it the usable amplitude falls as the reciprocal of frequency, so the fraction of authority available is a simple ratio [Describing function].

\[\frac{\hat{\delta} \left( \omega \right)}{\delta_{\max}} = \min \left( 1 , \frac{\omega_c}{\omega} \right)\]

At the short period, for any surface whose corner frequency falls below it, that ratio alone gives the answer.

\[\frac{\hat{\delta} \left( \omega_{sp} \right)}{\delta_{\max}} = \frac{\omega_c}{\omega_{sp}} \qquad \text{whenever} \qquad \omega_c < \omega_{sp}\]

These are the published limits, with the corner frequency computed from the two columns beside it.

Surface	Deflection limit	Rate limit	Full-deflection corner	Commanded by the second system
Symmetric horizontal tail	25.0 degrees	60.0 degrees per second	2.40 radians per second	yes
Differential horizontal tail, per surface	5.375 degrees	60.0 degrees per second	11.16 radians per second	yes
Aileron, which is a flaperon on this aircraft	21.5 degrees	80.0 degrees per second	3.72 radians per second	yes
Rudder	30.0 degrees	120.0 degrees per second	4.00 radians per second	yes
Leading-edge flap, which the second system does not command	25.0 degrees	25.0 degrees per second	1.00 radians per second	no

Read the fourth column and the design becomes visible.

The symmetric horizontal tail, which has the most deflection of any pitch surface commanded by the second system, has the lowest corner frequency of all of them at 2.4 radians per second, or 0.382 hertz. That is below the short-period frequency of the aeroplanes this machine exists to imitate. A fighter short period sits in the region of 4 radians per second, a representative value this article assumes, and at that frequency the stabilator can reach only 60 percent of its travel, or 15 degrees out of twenty-five.

\[\omega_c = \frac{60}{25} = 2.40 , \qquad \frac{\omega_c}{2 \pi} = 0.382 , \qquad \frac{\hat{\delta} \left( \omega_{sp} \right)}{\delta_{\max}} = \frac{2.40}{4} = 0.60 , \qquad \hat{\delta} = 0.60 \times 25 = 15\]

The differential tail is the opposite case and the contrast is exact. It has the least deflection of any of them and the same rate limit as the stabilator, so its corner frequency is higher by the ratio of the two deflection limits, 4.65 against 4.65. The common rate limit cancels.

\[\frac{\omega_{c,d}}{\omega_{c,s}} = \frac{R / 5.375}{R / 25.0} = \frac{25.0}{5.375} = 4.65 , \qquad \frac{11.16}{2.40} = 4.65\]

The surface with a fifth of the authority has more than four times the bandwidth at full authority, and at the short period it is not rate limited at all.

A designer who had sized the rate limits in proportion to the deflections would have produced the same corner frequency everywhere. That did not happen. The rate limits run 60, 60, 80 and 120 degrees per second against deflections of 25, 5.375, 21.5 and 30, and the four corner frequencies come out at 2.4, 11.16, 3.72 and 4 radians per second, a spread of nearly five to one.

This article does not know why. The limits were set for a fighter and not for a simulator and were published twelve years before the simulator flew, and this article takes the second flight control system to have inherited them. The inheritance is uneven, though, and the unevenness falls on the axis that matters most, because pitch is where a variable-stability aeroplane does most of its work and the pitch surface is the slowest of the four.

The Leading-Edge Flap Is the Cheapest Column Nobody Bought

The leading-edge flap has a corner frequency of exactly 1 radian per second, being twenty-five degrees of travel at twenty-five degrees per second, and its actuator lag is 2.75 times longer than every other surface’s [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979]. It is also a direct lift device, which makes it, on paper, a fourth column for the longitudinal control matrix.

\[\omega_c = \frac{25.0}{25.0} = 1.00 , \qquad \frac{\tau_l}{\tau} = \frac{0.136}{0.0495} = 2.75 , \qquad \frac{\hat{\delta} \left( \omega_{sp} \right)}{\delta_{\max}} = \frac{1.00}{4} = 0.25\]

And the second flight control system does not command it. The published account of what the system drives lists the trailing-edge flaps and omits the leading-edge ones [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net].

The arithmetic above is a sufficient reason and this article offers it as a reading rather than as a finding. A surface that can reach only 25 percent of its travel at the short-period frequency, through an actuator 2.75 times slower than the others, adds a column to the matrix that is almost empty in the band where the simulation lives.

The third reason is that the surface is already spoken for, and the schedule that speaks for it is published in the same appendix as the actuator lag.

\[\delta_l = 1.38 \, \frac{2 s + \omega_p}{s + \omega_p} \, \alpha - 9.05 \, \frac{\bar{q}}{P_s} + 1.45 , \qquad \omega_p = 7.25\]

Read the three terms. A lead network on angle of attack, a subtraction proportional to the ratio of dynamic to static pressure, and a constant bias. The network passes 1.38 degrees of flap per degree of angle of attack in steady flight and asks for 2.76 above its pole, because its numerator’s coefficient of the Laplace variable is twice its denominator’s. It is a lead of two, with a zero at 3.625 and a pole at 7.25 radians per second.

And the actuator that has to execute it has a corner of 7.35 radians per second, which is 1.42 percent from the schedule’s pole. Putting the two in series shows what the surface does.

\[\frac{\delta_l \left( s \right)}{\alpha \left( s \right)} = 1.38 \, \frac{2 s + \omega_p}{s + \omega_p} \cdot \frac{1}{\tau_l s + 1} , \qquad \omega_p \tau_l = 0.986\]

The product of the schedule’s pole and the actuator’s time constant is 0.986. If the two corners coincided exactly it would be one. They very nearly do, so the pole the network introduces and the pole the hardware introduces sit on top of one another, and above that frequency the combined response has one zero and two poles and therefore falls rather than rises.

Quantity	Between one and fifteen radians per second
Gain rise the schedule commands	1.8
Gain rise the surface delivers	0.8
Shortfall	2.25

The schedule asks the flap to become nearly twice as active across that band and the flap becomes slightly less active, and by fifteen radians per second the combined response lags by 51.7 degrees. The lead is not merely reduced. Its sign is reversed.

The table and the phase both come from the series transfer function above, evaluated on the imaginary axis. The gain rises are ratios of its magnitude at fifteen and at one radian per second, with and without the actuator factor.

\[\left| \frac{\delta_l}{\alpha} \left( j \omega \right) \right| = 1.38 \, \frac{\sqrt{4 \omega^2 + \omega_p^2}}{\sqrt{\omega^2 + \omega_p^2}} \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_l^2 \omega^2 + 1}} , \qquad \varphi \left( \omega \right) = \arctan \frac{2 \omega}{\omega_p} - \arctan \frac{\omega}{\omega_p} - \arctan \tau_l \omega\] \[\frac{1.853}{1.028} = 1.80 , \qquad \frac{1.853 \times 0.440}{1.028 \times 0.991} = 0.80 , \qquad \frac{1.80}{0.80} = 2.25 , \qquad \varphi \left( 15 \right) = 76.4 - 64.2 - 63.9 = - 51.7 \ \text{degrees}\]

This article makes no claim that the coincidence was deliberate or that anyone has noticed it. The schedule was designed for an aeroplane and the actuator was sized for a surface, and a near-cancellation between two poles chosen for different purposes is as likely to be an accident as a design. The surface the simulation might have wanted is in any case already carrying a command it cannot execute, a third reason on top of the two the previous paragraphs give, and the public record does not say which of the three governed.

The Actuator Puts a Floor Under Every Aeroplane This One Can Be

The most important consequence of the published numbers is not a limit on authority. It is a limit on quickness, and it is one-sided.

Every surface but the leading-edge flap is modelled as a first-order lag of 0.0495 seconds [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979].

\[\frac{\delta \left( s \right)}{\delta_c \left( s \right)} = \frac{1}{\tau s + 1} , \qquad \omega_a = \frac{1}{\tau}\]

That corner frequency is 20.2 radians per second, or 3.22 hertz, and the phase it costs grows with frequency.

\[\varphi \left( \omega \right) = - \arctan \left( \omega \tau \right)\]

At the short period it is 11.2 degrees, and at low frequency the lag behaves as a pure time delay of the same time constant.

\[\frac{1}{\tau s + 1} \; \simeq \; e^{- \tau s} \qquad \text{whenever} \qquad \omega \tau \ll 1\]

The approximation is very good across the band this article uses. The phase a first-order lag contributes differs from a pure delay’s by 0.018 of a degree at two radians per second, 0.145 at four and 1.086 at eight. So calling the actuator a delay of 49.5 milliseconds describes the hardware and is no mere convenience.

Now consider what a model-following system is. It reads a command, computes what the model would do, and moves the host’s surfaces to make the host do it. Every delay in the host therefore sits between the pilot’s hand and the simulated response, and equivalent delays in series add.

\[\tau_e \left( \text{host and model} \right) = \tau_e \left( \text{host} \right) + \tau_e \left( \text{model} \right) \; \ge \; \tau_e \left( \text{host} \right)\]

That inequality carries the argument, and it has no escape in it. Both terms are non-negative, so the sum is at least the first, and the first comes from the host’s actuators.

\[\tau_s \; \ge \; \tau + \frac{3}{2 f_s}\]

A variable-stability aeroplane can make any aeroplane sluggish and it cannot make any aeroplane crisp. It can add lag, it can add instability, it can add a hundred milliseconds of transport delay and show a student what that feels like. It cannot subtract its own hardware. The set of aeroplanes it can faithfully reproduce is bounded below, and the bound is the host’s equivalent delay.

The floor is at least 49.5 milliseconds from the actuator alone. A digital implementation adds sampling and transport. Assuming a frame rate of sixty hertz, which this article assumes and does not know, the computation contributes half a frame of sampling and one frame of transport, a further 16.7 and 16.7 halved, for a floor of about 74.5 milliseconds and 17.1 degrees of phase at the short period.

The frame rate is an assumption and the article flags it as one. The actuator number is published and the conclusion does not depend on the assumed part, because a floor of forty-nine and a half milliseconds is already a floor. The assumption yields an order of magnitude for the computational share, and that share is comparable to the hardware rather than negligible beside it.

The Instrument Shares the Failure Mode of the Thing It Studies

A rate-limited actuator is a recognised mechanism of pilot-induced oscillation, and this aeroplane’s actuators are rate limited [Pilot-induced oscillation].

Pilot-induced oscillation, for which aircraft-pilot coupling has been proposed as a replacement term because the oscillation is not necessarily the pilot’s fault, is a sustained or unstable oscillation of the closed loop formed by a human operator and an aircraft [Pilot-induced oscillation] [McRuer and Krendel, Mathematical Models of Human Pilot Behavior]. The linear case is understood and designed against. A category that has proved hard to predict, and to which the 1992 crash of the YF-22 prototype was linked, is the one in which the aircraft is linear until a surface hits its rate limit, at which point the effective phase lag jumps and a loop that was stable a moment earlier is not [Pilot-induced oscillation].

The mechanism is the describing function of the rate limiter, the effective gain a nonlinear element presents to a sinusoid of a given amplitude and frequency [Describing function] [Slotine and Li, Applied Nonlinear Control].

A rate limiter deep in saturation is moving at its limit throughout the cycle, so its output is not a distorted sinusoid but a triangle, and the triangle’s amplitude follows from the limit and the frequency alone.

\[\left| \dot{\delta} \right| = R \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \hat{\delta}_o = \frac{\pi R}{2 \omega}\]

The fundamental of a triangular wave is eight over pi squared times its amplitude, so the gain the element presents is the quotient of that fundamental and the input.

\[\left| N \right| = \frac{8}{\pi^2} \cdot \frac{\hat{\delta}_o}{\hat{\delta}} = \frac{4 R}{\pi \, \hat{\delta} \, \omega}\]

The gain falls as the reciprocal of frequency and as the reciprocal of amplitude, an amplitude-dependent bandwidth that makes the phenomenon hard to predict from a linear model. The tighter the pilot tries to control, the larger the command and the smaller the gain the aeroplane returns. The result is a positive feedback between effort and difficulty, and it explains why the phenomenon appears in demanding tasks and is absent in gentle ones.

Condition	Onset ratio	Triangular output	Gain	Amplitude lost
Full tail travel at the short period	0.6	23.56 degrees	0.764	23.6 percent
Full tail travel at ten radians per second	0.24	9.42 degrees	0.306	69.4 percent

The relation above is the deep-saturation asymptote and not the describing function itself, and the clearest evidence for that is that it exceeds one at onset. Evaluated where the demanded rate exactly equals the limit it gives 1.273, and a rate limiter cannot amplify. The true describing function is continuous and equals one there, so the figures in the first row of that table, taken near onset, are indicative rather than exact, while the second row is well inside the asymptote’s range.

And the phase is the part this article cannot supply. An ideal rate limiter, one that simply clips the slope of its input, is an even operation on an odd input and contributes no phase lag at all. The phase lag that makes this phenomenon dangerous comes from the servo loop wrapped around the limiter in any real actuator, and its size depends on the loop gain and the loop’s dynamics. This article has the actuator’s lag and its rate limit and does not have its loop, so it reports the gain loss and declines to quote a phase.

The phenomenon has been flown deliberately and reported. A limited flight test investigation of pilot-induced oscillation due to elevator rate limiting exists in the defence registry. That investigation is this section’s argument flown in an aeroplane [A Limited Flight Test Investigation of Pilot-Induced Oscillation Due to Elevator Rate Limiting, 1997].

A variable-stability aeroplane exists in part to study this, because putting a student in a machine that can be made to oscillate under a safety pilot’s supervision is safer than discovering the property on a prototype. The school that operates this aircraft says so directly, describing its purpose as giving students the opportunity to practise testing aircraft with dangerously poor flying qualities [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org].

And the instrument contains the nonlinearity it is used to investigate. The second flight control system drives the same surfaces, on this article’s assumption through the same actuators with the same published rate limits. When the simulated aeroplane demands a stabilator motion beyond 2.4 radians per second at full travel, the full-deflection corner of the limits table, the host rate limits, and the phase that costs is added to the simulated response. The student meets a lag that belongs to the host rather than to the model, and nothing in the cockpit distinguishes the two.

No criticism of the aeroplane is intended. The point describes what an in-flight simulator is. Every simulator has an unmodelled remainder, and a reason a flying one is preferred to a ground-based one is that its remainder is an aeroplane rather than a motion platform. The remainder is still there. Stated carefully, the machine simulates the model plus itself, the sum is what the pilot rates, and separating the two is a question about the instrument rather than about the aeroplane under study.

The published limits say where the separation matters. Below 2.4 radians per second at full stabilator travel, and proportionately higher at smaller amplitudes, the host’s rate limits are not active and the simulation is whatever the linear analysis predicts. Above them the host is contributing a nonlinearity of its own, and a result obtained there is a result about a particular F-16 with a particular set of hydraulic actuators.

What the Delay Floor Costs the Pilot

Manual control theory’s central result is that a trained operator adapts until the open loop looks like an integrator near the frequency at which the loop gain passes unity [McRuer and Krendel, Mathematical Models of Human Pilot Behavior] [McRuer, Ashkenas and Graham, Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control].

\[Y_p \left( s \right) Y_c \left( s \right) \; \simeq \; \frac{\omega_{co} \, e^{- \tau_e s}}{s}\]

The consequence is that the pilot supplies whatever the aeroplane lacks, and the one thing no adaptation supplies is phase. An integrator alone leaves ninety degrees of margin at crossover, and a transport delay eats into it linearly.

\[\varphi_m = \frac{\pi}{2} - \omega_{co} \tau_e\]

So the delay floor is a fixed tax on the pilot’s margin, charged before the simulated aeroplane has contributed anything.

At a crossover of	The actuator alone costs	The floor costs	Leaving
Three radians per second	8.51 degrees	12.81 degrees	77.19 degrees
Six radians per second	17.02 degrees	25.61 degrees	64.39 degrees

At the lower of the two crossover frequencies assumed here, the host consumes 14.23 percent of the available margin. At the upper it consumes 28.46 percent. The share is the phase the floor costs divided by the ninety degrees an integrator leaves, with the floor of 74.5 milliseconds.

\[\frac{\omega_{co} \tau_e}{\pi / 2} , \qquad \frac{3 \times 0.0745}{1.5708} = 0.1423 , \qquad \frac{6 \times 0.0745}{1.5708} = 0.2846\]

The crossover frequencies are assumed and are named as assumptions. The delay is published.

Setting the margin to zero gives the frequency at which the host’s hardware forbids a loop closure outright.

\[\varphi_m = 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \omega_{co} = \frac{\pi}{2 \tau_e}\]

That is 21.08 radians per second for the floor and 31.73 for the actuator alone. Both are far above where a human pilot works, so the ceiling is not the binding constraint. What binds is the tax, which is paid at every crossover frequency and which the simulation cannot refund.

Why the Bandwidth Criterion Is Not Used

The field has a standard way of turning a delay into a handling-qualities level and this article does not use it.

The bandwidth criterion pairs a frequency at which the pitch attitude response has fallen to a stated phase with a second parameter called the phase delay, and draws a boundary in the plane of the two [Hodgkinson, Aircraft Handling Qualities] [USAF Test Pilot School, Flying Qualities Phase, Volume II, Chapter 15, Dynamic Parameter Analysis]. The delay floor derived under The Actuator Puts a Floor Under Every Aeroplane This One Can Be ought to be expressed in that parameter, because a pure delay is the simplest thing that has one.

And the definition is a formula that cannot be verified without reading the specification, which lies outside what this article read. Deriving the phase delay of a pure delay from an unverified statement of the definition, not taken from the specification, gives half the delay. The gloss the subject is usually summarised with holds that the phase delay of a pure delay is the delay. Those two cannot both be right, and the disagreement is a factor of two on the one quantity the criterion would have supplied.

An unverified formula is not a citation, and a factor of two is not a rounding. So the article uses the phase margin instead, which follows from the crossover model in one line and which is derived above, and it records here that the criterion exists and that this is why it is absent. The specification that defines it is cited and is not quoted [Background Information and User Guide for MIL-F-8785B, Military Specification, Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes, 1969].

The cost of that refusal is stated rather than hidden. A reader who wants the delay floor expressed as a handling-qualities level will not find it here. What is here instead is the phase it consumes at a stated crossover, which is a weaker claim, which is derived, and which does not depend on a document this article has not opened.

The Answer Comes Back on an Ordinal Scale

Whatever this aeroplane measures, it reports through a human being, and the reporting scale has a property that bounds what can be done with the answer.

The standard instrument is the Cooper-Harper rating scale, which is a decision tree ending in ten numbered boxes [Cooper and Harper, The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities, NASA Technical Note D-5153, 1969] [Cooper-Harper rating scale] [Hodgkinson, Aircraft Handling Qualities]. A pilot answers a sequence of questions about whether the aircraft is controllable, whether adequate performance is attainable, and what compensation is required, and arrives at a number between one and ten. The numbers are ordered and the ordering is meaningful. A rating of three describes an aeroplane better than a rating of five.

So the loop between the instrument and its readout is closed inside one institution and it is documented. The aeroplane produces the stimulus, the student produces the rating, and the definition of the rating is bound into the curriculum the student was taught from. That is a strength and a limit at the same time, because a scale taught as a chapter is a scale applied consistently, and consistency is not the same thing as an interval.

The spacing is not meaningful, and that is a property of the scale rather than an opinion about it [Level of measurement]. There is no sense in which the distance from three to five equals the distance from six to eight. The boundaries between the three handling-qualities levels fall between ratings three and four and between six and seven [Hoh 1982], and those two boundaries are the scale’s only claims about magnitude. Those levels are the specification’s vocabulary, and the reasoning behind them is written down in the background documents that accompany the flying-qualities specifications rather than in the specifications themselves [Background Information and User Guide for MIL-F-8785B, Military Specification, Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes, 1969] [Flying Qualities Design Criteria, Proceedings of the AFFDL Flying Qualities Symposium, 1980]. The other seven gaps assert nothing.

The formal statement is about which transformations of the scale leave it saying the same thing. An ordinal scale is one whose content survives any strictly increasing relabelling of its points.

\[r_1 < r_2 \; \iff \; g \left( r_1 \right) < g \left( r_2 \right) \qquad \text{for every strictly increasing } g\]

So a statistic is meaningful on such a scale exactly when it commutes with every such relabelling, and that single test separates the summaries that are allowed from the summaries that are not.

\[\operatorname{med} \left( g \left( r \right) \right) = g \left( \operatorname{med} \left( r \right) \right) , \qquad \operatorname{mean} \left( g \left( r \right) \right) \ne g \left( \operatorname{mean} \left( r \right) \right)\]

The median is the middle element and relabelling the elements does not change which one is in the middle. The mean is a sum divided by a count, and a sum depends on the distances between the labels, and those distances are what an ordinal scale declines to supply.

The consequence is that a mean pilot rating is a category error. So is a standard deviation of pilot ratings, and so is any statistical procedure that assumes the intervals are equal. The defensible summaries are the median, the range and the counts in each level, and the defensible tests are rank-based ones.

Whether the practice of averaging is common is not something this article is in a position to say, because that would require reading a sample of the handling-qualities literature large enough to support the claim and this survey has not done it. What can be said is that the scale’s definition forbids it, that the alternative is not difficult, and that an instrument whose output is ordinal cannot be made interval by the precision of the aeroplane feeding it.

This is the one limit in the article that is not a limit on the aeroplane at all. The model-following condition is exact, the residual is computable, the rate limits are published, the delay floor is arithmetic. And the quantity all of that machinery exists to deliver is a number a human being picks out of ten boxes. The instrument is far more precise than its readout. That is an unusual place for an engineering system to be, and it deserves plain statement.

The Flight Test Record

The aeroplane has a flight record of more than thirty years and this article holds almost none of its data. It first flew in April 1992 [General Dynamics X-62 VISTA] [Flight Test Files, Viper X, Vintage Aviation News]. Behind its General Electric engine with an axisymmetric vectoring exhaust nozzle it completed 95 test flights of thrust-vectoring work before that programme ended in 1994 [X-62 Variable-Stability In-Flight Test Aircraft, Air and Space Forces Magazine weapons and platforms entry]. A Pratt and Whitney vectoring programme was planned next and was cancelled, and the aeroplane returned to its operators with a standard F100-PW-229 in June 1997 [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net]. The school that operates it describes its purpose as giving students the opportunity to practise testing aircraft with dangerously poor flying qualities, with a safety pilot in the back seat [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org].

The flights since the redesignation are documented as claims and not as data. The subsection The Autonomy the Number Was For reports the seventeen hours of flight under an artificial intelligence agent in December 2022, the twenty-one flights the trade press counts and the engagements against crewed fighters in 2023, and it reports all of them as claims by interested parties. The programme’s own papers on ground and flight testing the simulation system and on flight testing the autonomy exist [Haus, Ground and Flight Testing the New VISTA Simulation System, AIAA SciTech 2023] [Cotting, Stephens, Cole, Gray, Hartwig and Caraway, X-62 VISTA Simulation and Autonomy Flight Testing, AIAA SciTech 2023], and The Source Base records that this article cites them for their existence, their authorship and their subject without having read them. No sortie log, flight count beyond those quoted or measured response from any campaign is reported here, and the record this article holds is silent on what those flights measured.

The Autonomy the Number Was For

The programme the redesignation served has a stated challenge problem and it is not flying. The agency describes its Air Combat Evolution effort, abbreviated ACE, as seeking to increase trust in combat autonomy by using human-machine collaborative dogfighting as its challenge problem, and says that in parallel it will implement methods to measure, calibrate, increase and predict human trust in that autonomy [ACE, Air Combat Evolution, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programme page].

Trust is the deliverable and the dogfight is the test case. That ordering is unusual. The stated aim is a hierarchical division in which a human keeps the high-level decisions, being the engagement strategy, the choice and priority of targets and the weapon or effect, while the machine keeps the details of manoeuvre and tactics [ACE, Air Combat Evolution, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programme page]. The pilot is to become a mission commander, and the aeroplane’s role is to make that division credible enough to be trusted.

The aircraft was flown by an artificial intelligence agent for more than seventeen hours in December 2022, which the prime contractor described at the time as the first occasion on which such an agent had been engaged on a tactical aircraft [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023]. The trade press records the same campaign as twenty-one flights and describes the aircraft as the first supersonic aeroplane to fly under such control, progressing to engagements against crewed fighters in 2023 [X-62 Variable-Stability In-Flight Test Aircraft, Air and Space Forces Magazine weapons and platforms entry].

All of these are claims by interested parties and this article reports them as such. The agency, the prime contractor and the school all have reasons to describe the result as a first. Nothing in this survey’s 7,000 records contradicts any of them, which describes what was searched rather than what is true.

The Autonomy Fits the Same Three Controls

What makes this aeroplane useful for autonomy work is the property established under Model Following as the Mathematics of Pretending, and it is not obvious from the press releases.

An autonomous agent developed for an uncrewed aircraft is written against that aircraft’s dynamics. To fly it on a host, the host must present the agent with the dynamics it expects, which is model following with the model supplied by whichever vehicle the agent was built for. The upgrade programme added a system for autonomous control of the simulation alongside an updated simulation system, together with the model-following algorithm itself [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023] [Cotting, Stephens, Cole, Barricklow and Gray, X-62 VISTA Capabilities and Architecture, AIAA SciTech 2023] [Cotting, Stephens, Cole, Gray, Hartwig and Caraway, X-62 VISTA Simulation and Autonomy Flight Testing, AIAA SciTech 2023].

So the agent commands a simulated aeroplane, the simulation runs on a real one, and a safety pilot sits behind both. The projector being zero is what makes the middle layer honest, and the statement it licenses is an equality between transfer functions rather than a resemblance.

\[\Pi = 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad G_{cl} \left( s \right) = C \left( s I - A_m \right)^{-1} B_m = G_m \left( s \right)\]

When the projector vanishes, the thing the agent is flying is not an approximation of the model. It is the model. The host’s dynamics matrix has been cancelled out of the closed loop entirely and what remains contains only the model’s. If the host could not reproduce the target vehicle’s dynamics exactly, the agent would be flying something other than the aeroplane it was trained on, and a result obtained that way would say less than it appeared to.

And that equality holds only inside the band the previous sections bounded. It assumes the actuators keep up, which the rate limits deny above a few radians per second at large amplitude, and it assumes no delay, which the floor denies at every frequency. The equivalence is exact in the algebra and approximate in the aeroplane, and the size of the approximation is what this article has spent its arithmetic measuring.

This is the clearest answer the article has to why the aeroplane received an X number in 2021 and not in 1992. The machine did not change. The thing being deceived did. For twenty-nine years it fooled pilots, a task with a well-developed literature and a well-understood instrument. Since 2021 it has been fooling software, and the question of whether a piece of software can tell that it is not flying the aeroplane it thinks it is flying is barely a literature yet. Among this survey’s titles, one evaluates the autonomous flying qualities of a simulated variable-stability aircraft [Hamidani and Kunz 2018] and one quantifies the gap between simulation and reality for autonomous ground systems [Waheed et al 2025].

Comparison With Ground Prediction

Every number this article computes is a ground prediction, and none of them has a flight value beside it. The Flight Test Record, above, establishes that this article holds no measured response from any of the aeroplane’s flights, so the comparison this section exists to make can be set up and cannot be completed.

The published limits are themselves ground data. The deflection limits, rate limits and actuator lags come from Technical Paper 1538, whose aerodynamic data came from low-speed wind-tunnel tests of subscale models of the F-16 [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979], and they describe a production F-16 as modelled in 1979. Epistemic State, below, records that the sources consulted give no current values for this aeroplane, so even the inputs to the predictions are untested against the airframe that flies.

This article makes four predictions. Sizing From First Principles predicts that three independent controls per axis suffice for exact model following, and that in a representative short-period simulation the symmetric flap reaches its limit at a far lower angle of attack than the tail. Dependent Systems predicts that the symmetric tail is rate limited above 2.4 radians per second at full travel, and that the host adds a published floor of actuator delay to every aeroplane it simulates. None of the four was compared with flight, and the flap figure uses representative matrices rather than the aeroplane’s own.

The programme made ground predictions of its own and published them, and whatever comparison they contain lies in papers outside this article’s reading. Piloted ground simulation of the modified aeroplane was published in 1995 and 1996 [McKeehen, Genesis Simulation of a Modified VISTA and F-16, AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, 1995] [McKeehen, Cord and Nguyen, Modified VISTA and F-16 Piloted Simulation Study, AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, 1996], and a paper on ground and flight testing the new simulation system was published in 2023 [Haus, Ground and Flight Testing the New VISTA Simulation System, AIAA SciTech 2023]. What those papers set side by side is not represented here.

The nearest comparison the article does report is on a different aeroplane. The model-following system of Calspan’s Total In-Flight Simulator was published together with its flight verification within five years of the 1967 memorandum [Motyka, Rynaski and Reynolds, Theory and Flight Verification of the TIFS Model-Following System, Journal of Aircraft, 1972]. That places the mathematics this article uses inside a tradition that tested it in the air. It does not test any figure computed here for the X-62A.

The autonomy flights carry an implied comparison and the record states only its outcome. An agent written against one vehicle’s dynamics is a product of the ground, and flying it on the host tests whether the host presents the dynamics the agent expects. The sources report that the agent flew the aeroplane for more than seventeen hours in December 2022 [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023], and nothing this article has read reports how closely the flown response matched the model.

What the Data Changed

This article can report no finding that the aeroplane’s flight data changed, because it holds none of that data. What it can report is what changed around the aeroplane, and each change is documented in a record other than a flight log.

The designation changed, and its operator tied the change to the research. The school said at the time that the redesignation reflected the research done on the aircraft over nearly thirty years [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org]. No other statement in the record connects the number to what the aeroplane had measured, and it concerns an accumulation of research rather than any single result.

The money changed. Obligations ran at about three times their earlier annual rate after 14 June 2021, as What It Costs to Keep an Instrument Flying states, and the first obligation after the redesignation paid for the third phase of the simulation system upgrade [Contract FA930421F5020, VISTA Simulation System upgrade Phase III, Department of the Air Force to Calspan].

The subject changed. The Flight Test Record carries the argument that since 2021 the thing being deceived has been software rather than pilots, and the prime contractor’s expansion of the acronym now names the simulation as the variable quantity in place of the stability [VISTA X-62 Advancing Autonomy and Changing the Face of Air Power, Lockheed Martin, 13 February 2023]. The record this article holds does not settle whether either change was driven by what earlier flights had shown.

Notation

Symbol	Meaning	Unit
$ x $	state vector of the host aeroplane	mixed
$ x_m $	state vector of the model being simulated	mixed
$ u $	control vector of the host aeroplane	mixed
$ u_m $	control vector of the model being simulated	mixed
$ A $	dynamics matrix of the host aeroplane	inverse seconds
$ A_m $	dynamics matrix of the model being simulated	inverse seconds
$ B $	control effectiveness matrix of the host aeroplane	mixed
$ B_m $	control effectiveness matrix of the model being simulated	mixed
$ n $	number of dynamic states	dimensionless
$ m $	number of independent controls	dimensionless
$ t $	time	seconds
$ K_x $	feedback gain matrix on the host’s own state	mixed
$ K_m $	gain matrix on the model’s state	mixed
$ K_u $	gain matrix on the model’s control input	mixed
$ B^{+} $	Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of the control effectiveness matrix	mixed
$ \Pi $	orthogonal projector onto the subspace no combination of the host’s controls can reach	dimensionless
$ I $	identity matrix	dimensionless
$ E $	unmatchable residual, being the part of the demanded change of dynamics that no control law can produce	inverse seconds
$ e $	state error between the host and the model it is simulating	mixed
$ Z_f $	normal force per unit symmetric flap deflection	newtons per radian
$ Z_h $	normal force per unit symmetric horizontal tail deflection	newtons per radian
$ M_f $	pitching moment per unit symmetric flap deflection	newton metres per radian
$ M_h $	pitching moment per unit symmetric horizontal tail deflection	newton metres per radian
$ \ell_f $	distance of the flap’s centre of pressure aft of the centre of gravity	metres
$ \ell_h $	distance of the horizontal tail’s centre of pressure aft of the centre of gravity	metres
$ \bar{c} $	mean aerodynamic chord	metres
$ \kappa $	condition number of a matrix	dimensionless
$ \sigma $	singular value of a matrix	mixed
$ \delta $	control surface deflection	radians
$ \delta_c $	commanded control surface deflection	radians
$ \delta_{\max} $	deflection limit of a control surface	radians
$ R $	rate limit of a control surface actuator	radians per second
$ \hat{\delta} $	amplitude of a sinusoidal surface deflection, written thus because the dynamics matrix has taken the usual symbol	radians
$ \omega $	angular frequency	radians per second
$ \omega_c $	full-deflection corner frequency of a surface, being its rate limit divided by its deflection limit	radians per second
$ \omega_{c,s} $	full-deflection corner frequency of the symmetric horizontal tail	radians per second
$ \omega_{c,d} $	full-deflection corner frequency of the differential horizontal tail	radians per second
$ \omega_{sp} $	short-period natural frequency	radians per second
$ \omega_a $	corner frequency of the surface actuator lag	radians per second
$ \tau $	first-order lag time constant of a surface actuator	seconds
$ \tau_s $	equivalent time delay of the simulated aeroplane as the pilot meets it	seconds
$ \varphi $	phase lag	radians
$ f_s $	frame rate of the digital implementation	hertz
$ s $	Laplace variable	inverse seconds
$ T_0 $	date of first flight	years
$ T_d $	date the designation was allocated	years
$ T_n $	the date of this article	years
$ F $	fraction of its flying life the aeroplane has carried an X number	dimensionless
$ \delta_L $	deflection of the left horizontal tail	radians
$ \delta_R $	deflection of the right horizontal tail	radians
$ \delta_s $	symmetric horizontal tail deflection	radians
$ \delta_d $	differential horizontal tail deflection	radians
$ \alpha $	angle of attack	radians
$ q $	pitch rate	radians per second
$ Z_\alpha $	normal force derivative with respect to angle of attack	inverse seconds
$ M_\alpha $	pitching moment derivative with respect to angle of attack	inverse seconds squared
$ M_q $	pitching moment derivative with respect to pitch rate	inverse seconds
$ \omega_n $	undamped natural frequency of a second-order pair	radians per second
$ \zeta $	damping ratio	dimensionless
$ \lambda $	eigenvalue of a dynamics matrix	inverse seconds
$ t_2 $	time for a divergence to double in amplitude	seconds
$ \Delta A $	the change of dynamics the simulation demands, being the difference between the model’s dynamics matrix and the host’s	inverse seconds
$ b $	a single column of the control effectiveness matrix, being one control	mixed
$ \gamma $	deflection a surface is commanded per unit angle of attack in the worked simulation	dimensionless
$ \gamma_s $	that gradient for the symmetric horizontal tail, being the first entry of the angle-of-attack column of the matching gains	dimensionless
$ \gamma_f $	that gradient for the symmetric trailing-edge flap, being the second entry	dimensionless
$ \alpha_{\text{sat}} $	angle of attack at which a surface reaches its deflection limit	radians
$ \eta $	fraction of one row’s demanded change that no control law can produce	dimensionless
$ e_\infty $	steady model-following error left by a residual no gain removes	mixed
$ n_z $	normal load factor	dimensionless
$ \bar{q} $	dynamic pressure	pascals
$ S $	wing reference area	square metres
$ C_{L_\alpha} $	lift curve slope	per radian
$ W $	weight	newtons
$ C $	output matrix, selecting what the pilot is given to feel	mixed
$ y $	output vector	mixed
$ G_{cl} $	closed-loop transfer function of the host under model following	mixed
$ G_m $	transfer function of the model being simulated	mixed
$ \delta_l $	leading-edge flap deflection	radians
$ P_s $	static pressure	pascals
$ \omega_p $	pole of the published leading-edge flap schedule	radians per second
$ j $	imaginary unit	dimensionless
$ \tau_l $	first-order lag time constant of the leading-edge flap actuator	seconds
$ \hat{\delta}_o $	amplitude of the triangular output of a saturated rate limiter	radians
$ N $	describing function of a nonlinear element	dimensionless
$ \tau_e $	equivalent time delay of a cascade as the pilot meets it	seconds
$ Y_p $	describing function of the human pilot	mixed
$ Y_c $	transfer function of the controlled element	mixed
$ \omega_{co} $	crossover frequency of the pilot and vehicle loop	radians per second
$ \varphi_m $	phase margin	radians
$ g $	a strictly increasing map of the rating scale onto itself	dimensionless
$ r $	a pilot rating	dimensionless
$ v $	the obligation carried by one transaction	dollars
$ V $	the total obligation an award registry states separately from its transactions	dollars
$ k $	index over the transactions of one award	dimensionless
$ p $	index over the contractors, or over the calendar years, of the whole record	dimensionless
$ V_p $	the obligation summed over one contractor or one calendar year	dollars
$ V_{\text{all}} $	the obligation summed over the whole record	dollars
$ \rho_p $	share of the whole record’s obligation that one contractor or one calendar year carries	dimensionless

The Contemporary Literature

Cluster	Records
Model following, which is the mathematics of pretending	891
The instrument, being variable stability aeroplanes and in-flight simulation	712
The characteristic failure, being pilot-induced oscillation and rate limiting	402
The measurement, being handling and flying qualities	645
The human being deceived, and the models made of that human	307
The aeroplane, the laboratory and the programmes flown on it	73
The autonomy the X number was for	412
Getting the model in the first place	387
Designing the loop	1,759
The cockpit, which is this aeroplane’s own documented work	369
The high angle of attack work this airframe did first	375
The hardware between the command and the aeroplane	143
Measuring any of it in the air	216
Stability, control effectiveness and the equations of motion	233
Simulation models, turbulence and the atmosphere	76
Total	7,000

The survey behind this article holds 7,000 records, and The Source Base, below, states the rule that admits them. 979 of them, 14.0 percent, are report primaries, by the identifier rule set out under The Definition of Primary. 6,614 records carry a usable year, running from 1927 to 2027 with a median of 2004. 5,680 of those, 85.9 percent, predate or share the year in which the aeroplane was redesignated.

Every record the survey holds is cited below, each under exactly one cluster. The clusters are ordered from the keystone outward, and a record is filed under the cluster its title names as its subject.

Model following, which is the mathematics of pretending

The keystone. Explicit, implicit and perfect model following, model-reference adaptive control, dynamic inversion as a way of imposing a model, and control allocation, which distributes a demanded change over redundant surfaces. Model-reference control of plants other than aircraft is kept, because the method is the subject.

891 records. [West and Nikiforuk 1956] [Bongiorno 1962] [Model Reference Adaptive Systems 1962] [Humphries et al 1966] [Erzberger 1968] [Gill et al 1968] [James 1969] [Hasdorff et al 1970] [Porter and Tatnall 1970] [Wilson 1970] [Winsor and Roy 1970] [Zinober 1970] [Motyka and Reynolds 1971] [Al-Bahrani and Healey 1972] [Gallagher et al 1972] [Landau and Courtiol 1972] [Stengel 1972] [Landau and Courtiol 1973] [Michael and Farrar 1973] [Monopoli 1973] [Morse 1973] [Stengel 1973] [Stengel 1973] [Sutherlin and Boland 1973] [Tiroshi and Elliott 1973] [Alag and Kaufman 1974] [Alag and Kaufman 1974] [Armstrong 1974] [Healey and Al-Bahrani 1974] [Landau and Courtiol 1974] [Motyka 1974] [Tiroshi and Elliott 1974] [Alag and Kaufman 1975] [Mineck 1976] [Singh 1976] [Szalai et al 1976] [Feuer et al 1977] [Merrick 1977] [Shaked 1977] [Kar-Keung Young 1978] [Broussard and Berry 1979] [Gill and McLean 1979] [Johnson 1979] [Monopoli 1979] [Wang and Davison 1979] [Broussard and Berry 1980] [Johnstone et al 1980] [Kawahata 1980] [Lebacqz and Govindaraj 1980] [Morari 1980] [Narendra and Lin 1980] [Broussard 1981] [Jarvis and Szalai 1981] [Kreisselmeier and Joos 1981] [Monopoli and Subbarao 1981] [Nield 1981] [Rohrs et al 1981] [Abida and Kaufman 1982] [Broussard and Mabius 1982] [Cristi and Monopoli 1982] [Furuta and Komiya 1982] [Kanai and Nikiforuk 1982] [Mabius 1982] [Okada and Kihara 1982] [Okada et al 1982] [Shah and Monopoli 1982] [Sobel 1982] [Sobel and Kaufman 1982] [Abida and Kaufman 1983] [Harschburger 1983] [Zwartbol et al 1983] [Bouwer and Hilbert 1984] [Buethe and Lebacqz 1984] [Eliçabe and Meira 1984] [Hilbert and Bouwer 1984] [Marino and Nicosia 1984] [McLean and Al-Khatib 1984] [Praly 1984] [Sadeghi 1984] [Sastry 1984] [Singh 1984] [Tomizuka and Horowitz 1984] [van Amerongen and Honderd 1984] [Yasuda 1984] [Bundell 1985] [Dorling and Zinober 1985] [Kanai et al 1985] [Kidd 1985] [Morse 1985] [Raza and Silverthorn 1985] [Alag et al 1986] [Aldo and Marlo 1986] [Hilbert et al 1986] [Kanai et al 1986] [Lane and Stengel 1986] [Skowronski 1986] [Young 1986] [Alag 1987] [Bouwer 1987] [Chandrasekhar and Rao 1987] [Chen and Gau 1987] [Chetty and Henschel 1987] [Huang and Stengel 1987] [Ichikawa 1987] [Irving et al 1987] [Kamiya 1987] [Kassim 1987] [McKillip 1987] [Schmidt 1987] [Tomov and Kolev 1987] [Womack and Yamada 1987] [Dittmar 1988] [El-Sakkary 1988] [Fussell and Srinivasan 1988] [Goodner and Rao 1988] [Porter et al 1988] [Tao and Ioannou 1988] [Young 1988] [Application of perfect model 1989] [Duarte and Narendra 1989] [Edge and Figueredo 1989] [Kaletka and von Grünhagen 1989] [Kobayashi and Sato 1989] [Krause and Stein 1989] [Li and Sun 1989] [Mohseni and Ghorieshi 1989] [Morse and Ossman 1989] [Nonlinear model following control 1989] [Porter and Othman 1989] [Seraji 1989] [Tao and Ioannou 1989] [Ydstie 1989] [Yousef and Simaan 1989] [Zinober 1989] [Bolourchi and Hess 1990] [Enns 1990] [Huang and Stengel 1990] [Morse and Ossman 1990] [Nikiforuk et al 1990] [Pahle 1990] [Qiren and Zhihua 1990] [Schmidt and Schierman 1990] [Seraji 1990] [Anderson and Schmidt 1991] [Benhamida and Carroll 1991] [Butler et al 1991] [Durham and Lutze 1991] [Durham and Lutze 1991] [Glower and Carpenter 1991] [Miyasato 1991] [Model reference adaptive control 1991] [Ochi 1991] [Ohkawa and Tomizuka 1991] [Okubo 1991] [Salam 1991] [Sun 1991] [Tin-Pui Leung et al 1991] [Balas et al 1992] [Barlas et al 1992] [Bartolini and Ferrara 1992] [Fu and Li 1992] [Gao and Antsaklis 1992] [Henningsen and Ravn 1992] [Hsu and Lizarralde 1992] [Kanai 1992] [Snell 1992] [Tao and Ioannou 1992] [Unbehauen and Keuchel 1992] [Wise 1992] [A design of optimal 1993] [Adams and Banda 1993] [Adams and Banda 1993] [Fossard 1993] [Henningsen and Ravn 1993] [Hsu et al 1993] [Huang and Lin 1993] [Iftar 1993] [Johnson and Pszczel 1993] [Kobayashi and Sato 1993] [Miyasato 1993] [Model reference adaptive control 1993] [Model reference adaptive control 1993] [Mora-Camino and Achaibou 1993] [Muir 1993] [Mulgund and Stengel 1993] [Porter and Hicks 1993] [Robust model reference adaptive 1993] [Suzuki and Suzuki 1993] [Tso et al 1993] [Wakui 1993] [A design of two 1994] [Benvenuti et al 1994] [Durham et al 1994] [Enns et al 1994] [Kim and Yang 1994] [Mirfakhraie and Garrard 1994] [Parris and Fader 1994] [Partial stake reference model 1994] [Reiner et al 1994] [Rogers 1994] [Schwartz 1994] [Smith 1994] [Snell and Stout 1994] [Sun and Clarke 1994] [Sun et al 1994] [Takahashi et al 1994] [Uetake et al 1994] [Virnig and Bodden 1994] [Durham et al 1995] [Fletcher et al 1995] [Hicks and Porter 1995] [Hougui et al 1995] [Lee and Balas 1995] [Mulgund and Stengel 1995] [On the transient behaviour 1995] [Singularity-free multivariable model reference 1995] [Smith and Patel 1995] [Snell and Stout 1995] [Suzuki and Itamiya 1995] [Variable-structure linear-model-following control 1995] [Zhang and Morton 1995] [Durham 1996] [Muir and Bradshaw 1996] [Reiner et al 1996] [Shyu and Liu 1996] [Snell and Stout 1996] [Sun et al 1996] [Buffington 1997] [Duda et al 1997] [Duda et al 1997] [Escande 1997] [Kocurek et al 1997] [Lee 1997] [Littleboy et al 1997] [Liu Hsu et al 1997] [Miyasato 1997] [Nikiforov 1997] [Snell and Stout 1997] [Vu 1997] [Škrjanc and Matko 1997] [Buffington and Sparks 1998] [Buffington et al 1998] [Chern and Chang 1998] [Durham and Leedy 1998] [Escande 1998] [Goman and Kolesnikov 1998] [Kaufman et al 1998] [Keller 1998] [Malloy and Chang 1998] [Neural Network Model Reference 1998] [Patel and Smith 1998] [Saraf et al 1998] [Smit and Craig 1998] [Smith 1998] [Snell and Stout 1998] [Snell et al 1998] [Annaswamy 1999] [Gregory 1999] [Henderson and Lavretsky 1999] [Ito and Valasek 1999] [Keller et al 1999] [Ko et al 1999] [Liaw and Kung 1999] [Nonlinear model following control 1999] [Ostroff and Bacon 1999] [Page and Steinberg 1999] [Scalera and Durham 1999] [Schumacher 1999] [Suzuki et al 1999] [Yamada et al 1999] [Yamane et al 1999] [Bacon and Ostroff 2000] [Bodson 2000] [Lam et al 2000] [Piazzi and Visioli 2000] [Smith and Berry 2000] [Wang 2000] [Burken et al 2001] [Chu et al 2001] [Davidson et al 2001] [Fradkov and Druzhinina 2001] [Gregory 2001] [Hu and Lin 2001] [Hu and Lin 2001] [Looye 2001] [Miller 2001] [Nonlinear Model Following Control 2001] [Venkataraman and Doman 2001] [Wacker et al 2001] [Bernelli-Zazzera et al 2002] [Choe and Kim 2002] [Davison and Davison 2002] [Doman and Oppenheimer 2002] [Doman and Sparks 2002] [Kim et al 2002] [Mooij 2002] [Nelson and Durham 2002] [Ostroff and Bacon 2002] [Papageorgiou and Glover 2002] [Sato 2002] [Chang 2003] [Cho et al 2003] [Continuous-Time Model Reference Adaptive 2003] [Davison and Davison 2003] [Discrete-Time Model Reference Adaptive 2003] [Dong xinmin et al 2003] [Eure and Belcastro 2003] [Gundy-Burlet et al 2003] [Kannan and Johnson 2003] [Model Following Reconfigurable Flight 2003] [Saaj and Bandyopadhyay 2003] [Shankar et al 2003] [Yang and Gao 2003] [Cabral and Safonov 2004] [Cao 2004] [Filatov and Unbehauen 2004] [Padhi et al 2004] [Papageorgiou and Glover 2004] [Shankar et al 2004] [Duarte-Mermoud et al 2005] [Howitt 2005] [Hyung and Kim 2005] [Jin 2005] [Kolesnikov 2005] [Moon et al 2005] [Raghavendra et al 2005] [Weighting Matrices and Control 2005] [Chapter 5 Continuous-Time Model 2006] [Enns and Keviczky 2006] [Lingyu et al 2006] [Liu et al 2006] [Miyasato 2006] [Narges Maleki 2006] [Tayebi 2006] [Unnikrishnan and Balakrishnan 2006] [Weimeng and Zhiqiang 2006] [Xiaobo Xiao et al 2006] [Ying et al 2006] [Yu 2006] [Yu and Hong 2006] [Yuhang Wang et al 2006] [Acosta and Joshi 2007] [Alwi and Edwards 2007] [Barkana 2007] [Benosman et al 2007] [Izutsu and Furuta 2007] [Joosten et al 2007] [Nespeca and Sarigul-Klijn 2007] [Padhi et al 2007] [Perhinschi and Napolitano 2007] [Schkoda and Crassidis 2007] [Yang and Shen 2007] [Zaccarian 2007] [Zhang et al 2007] [Ahmad et al 2008] [Alwi et al 2008] [Basher 2008] [Bruner and Steck 2008] [Chen and Zhang 2008] [Ducard and Geering 2008] [Hormigo et al 2008] [Jianjun Ma et al 2008] [Jianjun Ma et al 2008] [Jianjun Ma et al 2008] [Joosten et al 2008] [Kawaguchi et al 2008] [Lombaerts et al 2008] [Lorenz 2008] [Ma et al 2008] [MacKunis et al 2008] [Martin et al 2008] [Oliveira and Araujo 2008] [Peng et al 2008] [Scarritt 2008] [Sun et al 2008] [Wang and Okubo 2008] [Wang et al 2008] [Wang et al 2008] [Wang Xiaoqing et al 2008] [Zhang et al 2008] [Alwi and Edwards 2009] [Ariyur et al 2009] [Ben Yamin et al 2009] [Chang and Davison 2009] [Cortesao 2009] [Dazhong Wang et al 2009] [Drury and Whidborne 2009] [Ferrari 2009] [Kannan et al 2009] [Kawaguchi et al 2009] [Lavretsky 2009] [Lavretsky et al 2009] [Liu et al 2009] [Ma and Wang 2009] [Ozdemir and Horn 2009] [Rajagopal et al 2009] [Rajasekaran et al 2009] [Sato 2009] [Wang et al 2009] [Wang et al 2009] [Wang et al 2009] [Yang et al 2009] [Yang et al 2009] [Yang et al 2009] [Ye et al 2009] [Zaccarian 2009] [Zhong et al 2009] [Baroff et al 2010] [Bosworth 2010] [Crespo et al 2010] [Delbari et al 2010] [Enomoto 2010] [Frost et al 2010] [Hanson 2010] [Ishitobi and Nishi 2010] [Kannan and Johnson 2010] [Kondo and Ochi 2010] [Lavretsky et al 2010] [Lemon et al 2010] [Levin et al 2010] [Liu et al 2010] [Liu and Crespo 2010] [Lombaerts et al 2010] [Lombaerts et al 2010] [Maity et al 2010] [Mathavaraj et al 2010] [Ninomiya and Miyazawa 2010] [Peng et al 2010] [Qian and Chen 2010] [Qian and Li 2010] [Sieberling et al 2010] [Tanahashi and Itamiya 2010] [Ulrich and Sasiadek 2010] [Whitehead and Bieniawski 2010] [Yang et al 2010] [Yildiz and Kolmanovsky 2010] [Yildiz and Kolmanovsky 2010] [Yucelen and Calise 2010] [Yucelen and Calise 2010] [Zugaj and Narkiewicz 2010] [Bai et al 2011] [Balaguer 2011] [Biwei Tang et al 2011] [Brzózka 2011] [Chen et al 2011] [Corraro et al 2011] [Das et al 2011] [Gadient et al 2011] [Gregory et al 2011] [Hameduddin and Bajodah 2011] [Hameduddin and Bajodah 2011] [Hoagg and Bernstein 2011] [Li et al 2011] [Lili and Hua-min 2011] [Miller 2011] [Miller 2011] [Model following control systems 2011] [Namba and Uchiyama 2011] [Okubo and Wu 2011] [Robust Simple Adaptive H8 2011] [Taylor and Yoo 2011] [Wang et al 2011] [Yildiz et al 2011] [Zhiyang Zhang et al 2011] [Ahmadi et al 2012] [Chowdhary et al 2012] [ChunSheng Liu et al 2012] [Dongmo 2012] [Hameduddin and Bajodah 2012] [Hanson et al 2012] [He Qiang 2012] [Jafari and Mukherjee 2012] [Khan et al 2012] [Knöös et al 2012] [Kopecki 2012] [Lee et al 2012] [Li et al 2012] [Moncayo et al 2012] [Qiong Hu et al 2012] [Royer and Mavris 2012] [Serrani 2012] [Stepanyan and Krishnakumar 2012] [Yang et al 2012] [Yang Ning et al 2012] [Zhanqi and Xi’an 2012] [Zou et al 2012] [Barkana 2013] [Bazhenov and Shelyukhin 2013] [Bierling et al 2013] [Chakraborty et al 2013] [Craun et al 2013] [Franze et al 2013] [Gai and Wang 2013] [Gai et al 2013] [Leonard 2013] [Man Wang et al 2013] [Meikel et al 2013] [Miyasato 2013] [Orsag et al 2013] [Shiota and Ohmori 2013] [Shivanapura Lakshmikanth et al 2013] [Simplício et al 2013] [Tang and Patton 2013] [Tiwari and Padhi 2013] [Wang et al 2013] [Waters et al 2013] [Zhang et al 2013] [Cheng et al 2014] [Cristofaro and Galeani 2014] [Di Francesco et al 2014] [Gai et al 2014] [Guang et al 2014] [Guang-zhi and Xiu-xia 2014] [Horn et al 2014] [Lakshmikanth et al 2014] [Pai 2014] [Re 2014] [Sawada and Shin 2014] [Sawada and Shin 2014] [Shibasaki et al 2014] [Song et al 2014] [Takamatsu and Ohmori 2014] [Tang et al 2014] [Wang et al 2014] [Wang et al 2014] [Zhang et al 2014] [Zheng et al 2014] [Adams et al 2015] [AmirAhmadi Chomachar and Azizi 2015] [Cristofaro et al 2015] [Hou et al 2015] [Huijts and Voskuijl 2015] [Ivler and Juhasz 2015] [Sawada and Shin 2015] [Shibasaki et al 2015] [Shiota and Ohmori 2015] [Spires and Horn 2015] [Sun 2015] [Theilliol et al 2015] [Torres-Reyna et al 2015] [Zhang and Holzapfel 2015] [Zhu et al 2015] [Zollitsch et al 2015] [Ali and Montenegro 2016] [Binwen Lu et al 2016] [Cetin and Kutay 2016] [Cho and Kim 2016] [Control Allocation and Flight 2016] [Cristofaro and Zaccarian 2016] [Cui et al 2016] [Dong et al 2016] [Durham et al 2016] [Frame-wise Control Allocation 2016] [Fujio and Ishida 2016] [Fujizawa et al 2016] [Garmendia and Mavris 2016] [Guo et al 2016] [Hu et al 2016] [Huang Shuhong et al 2016] [Lungu and Lungu 2016] [Ma and Yang 2016] [Minami 2016] [Passenbrunner et al 2016] [Picardi et al 2016] [Tahmasebi et al 2016] [The Geometry of Control 2016] [Xie and Zhao 2016] [Yang et al 2016] [Yuwei et al 2016] [Ƶhang and Wei 2016] [Acquatella et al 2017] [AlAbsi and Fields 2017] [Alam and Celikovsky 2017] [Almutairi and Aouf 2017] [Cao et al 2017] [Chalam 2017] [Chen et al 2017] [Guo and Karlsson 2017] [Huang et al 2017] [Huang et al 2017] [Kim and Kim 2017] [Mehmood and Johnson 2017] [Miles and Broughton 2017] [Min-an et al 2017] [Nakayama et al 2017] [Nguyen and Hashemi 2017] [Noble and Bhandari 2017] [Wang et al 2017] [Xue et al 2017] [Yuan 2017] [Yucelen et al 2017] [Zaki et al 2017] [Arabi et al 2018] [Bakshi 2018] [Balaska et al 2018] [Beyer et al 2018] [Bian et al 2018] [Brando et al 2018] [Cakiroglu et al 2018] [Chen et al 2018] [Discrete-Time Model Reference Adaptive 2018] [Famularo and Valasek 2018] [Gai et al 2018] [Galeani and Sassano 2018] [Gerboni et al 2018] [Grondman et al 2018] [Găiceanu 2018] [Harris and Valasek 2018] [Johnson and Ahamed 2018] [Liu et al 2018] [Liu et al 2018] [Malisoff et al 2018] [Matamoros and de Visser 2018] [Nguyen 2018] [Nguyen et al 2018] [Nguyen and Hashemi 2018] [Pangaribuan and Sihombing 2018] [Prochazka et al 2018] [Rajput et al 2018] [Saetti and Horn 2018] [Saetti et al 2018] [Silva et al 2018] [Smeur et al 2018] [Tohidi et al 2018] [Wang et al 2018] [Wang et al 2018] [Wang et al 2018] [Zhang et al 2018] [Anfinsen and Aamo 2019] [Bian et al 2019] [Botan and Ostafi 2019] [de Vries and Van Kampen 2019] [Duan and Okwudire 2019] [Farconi et al 2019] [Harris et al 2019] [Joshi and Chowdhary 2019] [Li et al 2019] [Lin et al 2019] [Lu et al 2019] [Maity et al 2019] [Malisoff 2019] [Moučka 2019] [Patel et al 2019] [Pollack et al 2019] [Quad-rotors Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 2019] [Sadien et al 2019] [Safwat et al 2019] [Uthman 2019] [Vile et al 2019] [Vile et al 2019] [Wang and Yang 2019] [Wang et al 2019] [Yiming et al 2019] [Yu et al 2019] [Zhang et al 2019] [Zhang et al 2019] [A Generalization for Model 2020] [Atiah Alsulami and Zein-Sabatto 2020] [Baggi et al 2020] [Botan and Ostafi 2020] [G.S.S.S.S.V. 2020] [Hansen et al 2020] [Jeram and Juhasz 2020] [Jothiraj et al 2020] [Lewis and Johnson 2020] [Ludeña Cervantes et al 2020] [Maddi et al 2020] [Mansur and Lanteigne 2020] [Naeijian and Khosravi 2020] [Sadien et al 2020] [Saetti et al 2020] [Scholten et al 2020] [Shearwood et al 2020] [Shearwood et al 2020] [Tariq and Nahon 2020] [Theron et al 2020] [Tipàn et al 2020] [Vile et al 2020] [Wei et al 2020] [Xu et al 2020] [Y.P. 2020] [Yang and Gao 2020] [Yuksek and Inalhan 2020] [Agarwal et al 2021] [Ahmed and Chen 2021] [Ajel et al 2021] [Bachler and Petit 2021] [Bhargavapuri and Parwana 2021] [Daher and Daher 2021] [Goel and Roy 2021] [Jayaraman and Ghosh 2021] [Kopecki 2021] [Li et al 2021] [Pfeifle and Fichter 2021] [Qiao et al 2021] [Shearwood et al 2021] [Sun 2021] [Wang et al 2021] [Baggi et al 2022] [Banga-Banga et al 2022] [Chang et al 2022] [Costa 2022] [Enenakpogbe et al 2022] [Glushchenko and Lastochkin 2022] [Hansen et al 2022] [Harris et al 2022] [Hastedt et al 2022] [Kang and Choi 2022] [Kumtepe et al 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Luo et al 2022] [Pfeifle and Fichter 2022] [Pollack and Van Kampen 2022] [Smit et al 2022] [Sofrony et al 2022] [Tabassum and Bai 2022] [Xu et al 2022] [Yang et al 2022] [You et al 2022] [Beheshti et al 2023] [Bugday and Saetti 2023] [Chen et al 2023] [Cong et al 2023] [Demirkiran and Isci 2023] [Derivative-Free Model Reference Adaptive 2023] [Etewa et al 2023] [Govoni and Cristofaro 2023] [Gripp et al 2023] [Heer et al 2023] [Kabziński and Jastrzębski 2023] [Wu and Litt 2023] [L’Afflitto 2023] [Li et al 2023] [Model Reference Adaptive Control 2023] [Mohamed et al 2023] [Mosaad 2023] [Nagao et al 2023] [Panish et al 2023] [Pfeifle and Fichter 2023] [Qin et al 2023] [Qin et al 2023] [Robbins et al 2023] [Saldiran and Inalhan 2023] [Schoenfeld et al 2023] [Tavakkoli et al 2023] [Wahler et al 2023] [Wang et al 2023] [Yin 2023] [Antonakis and Biannic 2024] [Cao and Liu 2024] [Chakraborty and Comer 2024] [Comer et al 2024] [Cordeiro et al 2024] [Cristofaro and Faleschini 2024] [Dong et al 2024] [Fotiadis et al 2024] [Gong et al 2024] [Henkenjohann et al 2024] [Hofsäβ and Holzapfel 2024] [Jayarathne et al 2024] [Jia and Li 2024] [Jinghe et al 2024] [Karkar and Gökmenoğlu 2024] [Kefayat and Kamali 2024] [Lang et al 2024] [Lang et al 2024] [Li et al 2024] [Liu et al 2024] [Lou et al 2024] [Lam et al 2024] [Moore et al 2024] [Park et al 2024] [Pollack et al 2024] [Rong and Yang 2024] [Salahudden et al 2024] [Spaans et al 2024] [Stougie et al 2024] [Surmann et al 2024] [Tietze et al 2024] [Tietze et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wu et al 2024] [Wu et al 2024] [Yan and Shi 2024] [Yang and Chang 2024] [Yayla and Turker Kutay 2024] [Asaro et al 2025] [Barreto da Silveira et al 2025] [Cao and Liu 2025] [Chen and Horn 2025] [Comer 2025] [Das and Das 2025] [Dong et al 2025] [Ergöçmen and Tilki 2025] [Faleschini and Cristofaro 2025] [Fault Tolerant Control for 2025] [Gao et al 2025] [Guan et al 2025] [Gäßler and Robens 2025] [İnan and Aliskan 2025] [Jing and Ma 2025] [Koru and Wan 2025] [Kurtoglu and Yucelen 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Liang et al 2025] [Liu et al 2025] [Lu et al 2025] [Miller 2025] [Milz et al 2025] [Penev 2025] [Rahnama et al 2025] [Sabra et al 2025] [Saetti 2025] [Saetti 2025] [Salahudden 2025] [Scordamaglia et al 2025] [Simplício et al 2025] [Stam and de Visser 2025] [Stephan 2025] [Tang et al 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Zhang et al 2025] [Asper et al 2026] [Cakan and Sezgen 2026] [Ciresola et al 2026] [Elahi Kahooker and Liu 2026] [Hancioğlu and Efe 2026] [Hancoğlu and Efe 2026] [Hancıoğlu and Önder Efe 2026] [Keller et al 2026] [Lian and Cao 2026] [Lu et al 2026] [Mohamed et al 2026] [Narayanan et al 2026] [Rahima et al 2026] [Stephan 2026] [Tamaskani et al 2026] [Traas et al 2026] [Ul Haq et al 2026] [Wang et al 2026] [Zhang et al 2026] [Zhao et al 2026] [Akhtar and Bernstein] [Baba et al] [Bekiroglu et al] [Bialasiewicz and Proano] [Boskovic and Mehra] [Boskovic et al] [Botan and Onea] [Chang-Sun Hwang and Ho-Seong Jeong] [Datta and Ioannou] [Elliott] [Galvez and Balas] [Guo et al] [Hansheng Wu et al] [Harkegard] [Huey-Jian Uang and Huang] [Jiaqiang Zhu et al] [Marro and Zattoni] [Meyn and Brown] [Acheson and Gregory] [Acheson et al] [Acheson et al] [Model-reference Adaptive Voltage Regulators] [Morris et al] [Nakano et al] [Nakano et al] [Nakka] [Nguyen] [Orlov] [Pellanda and Apkarian] [Pieper et al] [Porter and Hicks] [Porter and Hicks] [Porter and Passino] [Porter and Xin-Guo Zhang] [Porter and Xin-Guo Zhang] [Sang] [Sato] [Swanson] [Tang et al] [Nakamura-Zimmerer and Miller] [Terminology for Redundant Flight] [Wang] [Wang Yong] [Yang] [Yedavalli et al] [Yin and Lee] [Yong-Yan Cao et al] [Zhang and Okubo]

The instrument, being variable stability aeroplanes and in-flight simulation

The instrument and its ground-based counterpart. Variable-stability aeroplanes and helicopters, in-flight simulators, and the ground-based flight simulators against which in-flight simulation is compared, with their motion cueing, fidelity and transfer of training.

712 records. [Ornstein et al 1954] [Harper and Robert P. 1955] [Creer and McNeill 1956] [Killian 1956] [Head-Up’ Flight Information Display 1961] [Vomaske et al 1961] [Dander 1962] [Drinkwater and Rolls 1962] [Deets and Redless 1963] [Flexman and Siskel 1963] [Jackson 1963] [Kurtzberg 1963] [Newell et al 1963] [Rawson 1963] [Ohara 1964] [Perry and Naish 1964] [Allen et al 1965] [Cox et al 1965] [Garren and Kelly 1965] [Holladay and White 1965] [Key et al 1965] [Person and Robbins 1965] [Arendt et al 1966] [Barker 1966] [Baska and Robbins 1966] [Berry and Deets 1966] [Brockway and Tubb 1966] [Clark and Kroll 1966] [Kluever et al 1966] [Borlace 1967] [Eney 1967] [Rhoads 1967] [Szalai 1967] [Eney 1968] [Hands 1968] [Albion et al 1969] [Eney 1969] [Malcom 1969] [McCormick 1969] [Michaels 1969] [Bowser 1970] [Caro 1970] [Hayden 1970] [Moore 1970] [Rhoads 1970] [Walter and Agnihotri 1970] [Zuccaro 1970] [Pruner and Reynolds 1971] [Szalai 1971] [Acklam 1972] [Rayhawk et al 1972] [Reynolds and Pruner 1972] [Schuler et al 1972] [Spitzer et al 1972] [Wirth 1972] [Beilman 1973] [Haas 1973] [Rolston et al 1973] [Smith et al 1973] [Valverde 1973] [Vinje and Miller 1973] [Wasserman and Mitchell 1973] [Weener et al 1973] [Lebacqz et al 1974] [Lebacqz 1974] [Miller et al 1974] [Reid and Cyrus 1974] [Vinje 1974] [Chen et al 1975] [Ellis and Tilak 1975] [Lebacqz and Aiken 1975] [McClurken 1975] [Motyka 1975] [Musick and Wagner 1975] [Queijo and Riley 1975] [Chambers 1976] [Deberg et al 1976] [Ellis 1976] [Hosman and van der Vaart 1976] [Huber and Reynolds 1976] [Nardi et al 1976] [Staley 1976] [Steinmetz et al 1976] [Visual Flight Simulation 1976] [Aiken et al 1977] [Chambers 1977] [Corliss et al 1977] [Grantham and Nguyen 1977] [Gundry 1977] [Orlansky and String 1977] [Reay 1977] [Woomer and Carico 1977] [Andrisani et al 1978] [Bynum 1978] [Corliss et al 1978] [Jewell et al 1978] [Merrick and Gerdes 1978] [Reynolds and Hall 1978] [Weitzman et al 1978] [Hill and Kress 1979] [Hofmann and Riedel 1979] [Holman 1979] [Micalizzi et al 1979] [Miller 1979] [Riedel 1979] [Woodruff 1979] [Crane 1980] [Hays 1980] [Jansen 1980] [Van Gaasbeek 1980] [Albery 1981] [Cardullo 1981] [Crosbie et al 1981] [Hays 1981] [Jaslow 1981] [Kellogg et al 1981] [Kreifeldt et al 1981] [Lancraft et al 1981] [Markov et al 1981] [McGuinness et al 1981] [McGuinness et al 1981] [Sanders 1981] [Sher 1981] [Simon and Roscoe 1981] [Van Gool and Weingarten 1981] [Weeks 1981] [Anderson 1982] [Haines and Luers 1982] [Hindson 1982] [Hughes et al 1982] [Isley and Spears 1982] [Jansen 1982] [Jewell 1982] [Landis and Aiken 1982] [Lapins et al 1982] [Lebacqz et al 1982] [Markov et al 1982] [Montague 1982] [Richards and Dismukes 1982] [Westra 1982] [Beilman 1983] [Borah and Young 1983] [Crane 1983] [Crosbie and Eyth 1983] [Kantowitz et al 1983] [Reynolds 1983] [Scafetta 1983] [Anderson et al 1984] [Clement et al 1984] [Cormier 1984] [Crane 1984] [D’Amico and William P. 1984] [Gillingham 1984] [Kantowitz et al 1984] [Kellogg et al 1984] [Markman 1984] [McCauley 1984] [Murphy and Butler 1984] [Rankin et al 1984] [Bischof et al 1985] [Crosbie and Kiefer 1985] [Forsstrom et al 1985] [Morgan 1985] [Tafs and Kraft 1985] [Tashiro et al 1985] [Bussolari et al 1986] [Chen et al 1986] [Knotts and Priest 1986] [Lewis 1986] [Marcus and Curran 1986] [Sattler 1986] [Sinacori 1986] [Bailey et al 1987] [Comparison of helmet-mounted visual 1987] [Donohue 1987] [Grantham and Williams 1987] [Howe 1987] [Merriken et al 1987] [Reid and Nahon 1987] [Sinclair and Morgan 1987] [Berens and Biezad 1988] [Blanton 1988] [Carr and McKissick 1988] [Ebenholtz 1988] [Jansen 1988] [Justiz and Patel 1988] [Knotts and Bailey 1988] [Komoda et al 1988] [Pausder et al 1988] [Reid and Nahon 1988] [Rohlf et al 1988] [Van Engelen 1988] [Bussolari et al 1989] [Cadiz et al 1989] [Dwyer and Simpson 1989] [Grantham 1989] [Henschel and Chetty 1989] [Hess 1989] [Kaye and Freeman 1989] [Komoda et al 1989] [Lee and Rissman 1989] [Levison 1989] [Markman 1989] [Robinson et al 1989] [Watanabe et al 1989] [White 1989] [Zammit and Zwaanenburg 1989] [Balzer 1990] [Bass and Harding 1990] [Cook 1990] [Jacobs et al 1990] [Miller et al 1990] [Reid and Robinson 1990] [The Bell X-22A V/STOL 1990] [Allen et al 1991] [Atkin and Ghee 1991] [Franklin and Engelland 1991] [Harmon and Dieterich 1991] [Hess and Malsbury 1991] [Ogburn et al 1991] [Shafer 1991] [Shappell and Bartosh 1991] [Tsukano et al 1991] [Austin et al 1992] [Blok 1992] [Bright and Simon 1992] [Decker 1992] [Engelland et al 1992] [Eyth and Heffner 1992] [Goodrich et al 1992] [Hahn and Koenig 1992] [Hays et al 1992] [Hess et al 1992] [Kiefer and Calvert 1992] [Kruk 1992] [Lin 1992] [Mayer 1992] [Miller and Richards 1992] [Miller and North 1992] [Pausder et al 1992] [Shafer 1992] [Sharkey and McCauley 1992] [Stevenson et al 1992] [Atencio 1993] [Caleffi and Belo 1993] [Garrood and Reid 1993] [Goodrich 1993] [Hess 1993] [Morgan and Baillie 1993] [Kelly et al 1993] [Markman 1993] [Oritz 1993] [Reinbachs 1993] [Sarathy and Murthy 1993] [Warner 1993] [Wilkins and Roach 1993] [Zhang 1993] [Andrisani and Jones 1994] [Burton et al 1994] [Evaluation maneuver and guideline 1994] [Garrood and Reid 1994] [Hamilton and Wightman 1994] [Higman and Sarathy 1994] [Miller and Khinoo 1994] [Nichols 1994] [Plummer 1994] [Shafer 1994] [Tanaka et al 1994] [Advani et al 1995] [Cho and Nagati 1995] [Edwards et al 1995] [Hariri 1995] [Huber 1995] [Kolasinski 1995] [Sims and Kimberlin 1995] [Stevens 1995] [Warner 1995] [Warner and Casey 1995] [Wentzel 1995] [Alagic et al 1996] [Andrews et al 1996] [Blake 1996] [Boyer 1996] [Brunner 1996] [De Maio et al 1996] [Franklin and Stortz 1996] [Idan and Sahar 1996] [Larsen 1996] [Li 1996] [Mukai and Hunter 1996] [Powers 1996] [Pritchett et al 1996] [Ray 1996] [Sullivan and Soukup 1996] [Tremblay 1996] [Baillie et al 1997] [Chung and Schroeder 1997] [Conzachi and Conzachi 1997] [Fuller et al 1997] [Houck et al 1997] [Anderson and Biezad 1998] [Carretta and Dunlap 1998] [Duda et al 1998] [Groeneweg 1998] [Idan et al 1998] [Mansor and Yaacob 1998] [Nichols et al 1998] [Pierce et al 1998] [Putting flight simulator to 1998] [Reciprocal acceptance of flight 1998] [The impact of the 1998] [Allerton 1999] [de Muynck and Khatwa 1999] [Firsov and Yakimenko 1999] [Kramer et al 1999] [Nguyen and Cord 1999] [Postlethwaite et al 1999] [Rutten 1999] [Sadovnychiy et al 1999] [Sheldon and Osmon 1999] [Telban et al 1999] [Zeyada and Hess 1999] [Done 2000] [Ippolito and Pritchett 2000] [Klaes 2000] [Marchesini 2000] [Moralez et al 2000] [Ockier and Butter 2000] [Ozeki et al 2000] [Postlethwaite et al 2000] [Sultan et al 2000] [Szczepanski et al 2000] [Zeyada and Hess 2000] [Auffrey et al 2001] [Decker 2001] [Fielding and Southworth 2001] [Hess and Siwakosit 2001] [Longbridge et al 2001] [Roscoe et al 2001] [York et al 2001] [Advani et al 2002] [Advani et al 2002] [Arterburn et al 2002] [Cartmell 2002] [Ellis et al 2002] [Field et al 2002] [Giovannetti 2002] [Holzapfel et al 2002] [Kimball et al 2002] [Lemmers et al 2002] [Lusardi et al 2002] [Ratvasky et al 2002] [Yurt et al 2002] [Zeyada and Hess 2002] [Krabs and Naumes 2003] [Ratvasky et al 2003] [Scamps and Gibbens 2003] [Zeyada and Hess 2003] [Arthur et al 2004] [Braun and Galloway 2004] [Geri et al 2004] [Mitchell et al 2004] [Oppenheimer and Doman 2004] [Passive-flight simulator 2004] [SGI Graphics supercomputers for 2004] [Steurs et al 2004] [Weingarten 2004] [Yurt et al 2004] [Battipede et al 2005] [Grant and Lee 2005] [Hosman et al 2005] [Houck et al 2005] [Loucel and Crouch 2005] [Persing et al 2005] [Szczepanski 2005] [Tallant 2005] [The flight data monitoring 2005] [Bauschat 2006] [Deters et al 2006] [Jinkun et al 2006] [Kinoshita and Imado 2006] [Levin 2006] [Sato 2006] [Shi et al 2006] [Tokutake et al 2006] [Advani et al 2007] [Burki-Cohen et al 2007] [Flight Simulator 2007] [Grant and Lee 2007] [Groen et al 2007] [Jinkun and Yuzhu 2007] [Kumar and Pradeep 2007] [Lei et al 2007] [Martin 2007] [Qi et al 2007] [Ratvasky et al 2007] [Sato and Satoh 2007] [Alguacil and Perez 2008] [Biezad and Rivera 2008] [Chung and Chung 2008] [Hagiwara et al 2008] [Hess and Marchesi 2008] [Hwang et al 2008] [Jarvis et al 2008] [Liu et al 2008] [McGovern 2008] [Morse et al 2008] [Park and Ko 2008] [Rogers and Costello 2008] [Schnell 2008] [Stewart et al 2008] [Tomczyk 2008] [Wang et al 2008] [Alwi et al 2009] [Becerra-Vargas et al 2009] [Chang et al 2009] [Ercole et al 2009] [Hu Hongjie et al 2009] [Lilienthal 2009] [Liu et al 2009] [Plummer and Guinzio 2009] [Rogalski et al 2009] [Shepherd et al 2009] [Shupeng Zheng et al 2009] [Shutao Zheng et al 2009] [Wang et al 2009] [Zheng et al 2009] [Cieslak et al 2010] [Fujizawa et al 2010] [Gawron et al 2010] [Geri 2010] [Grant and Schroeder 2010] [Guo et al 2010] [Hu et al 2010] [Jianshu and Hongfeng 2010] [Lombaerts et al 2010] [Lu and Shen 2010] [Pool et al 2010] [Shen et al 2010] [Shen et al 2010] [Sparko et al 2010] [Stroosma et al 2010] [Taylor and Barnett 2010] [Webb 2010] [Yao et al 2010] [Zheng et al 2010] [Zhenghua Liu et al 2010] [Zhifu Guo et al 2010] [Avanzini et al 2011] [Becerra-Vargas and Belo 2011] [Burki-Cohen et al 2011] [Chen and Wang 2011] [Covas-Smith and Bell 2011] [Cunningham et al 2011] [Ehlers et al 2011] [Fang et al 2011] [Gao et al 2011] [Gerlach 2011] [Italiano et al 2011] [Klyde et al 2011] [Liang-yu and Wu 2011] [Liu et al 2011] [Liu et al 2011] [Pasma et al 2011] [Pool et al 2011] [Sato and Satoh 2011] [Yunjie et al 2011] [Zheng et al 2011] [Barnett and Taylor 2012] [de Winter et al 2012] [Design standards and layout 2012] [Italiano and Cohen 2012] [Ledegang et al 2012] [Litt et al 2012] [Newman et al 2012] [Pool et al 2012] [Rapp et al 2012] [Schnell et al 2012] [Song et al 2012] [Wang 2012] [Wong et al 2012] [Zhang et al 2012] [Alexander and Hoefinger 2013] [Alvarez et al 2013] [Deresz 2013] [Klyde et al 2013] [Song et al 2013] [Stringer et al 2013] [Tobias et al 2013] [Bruschetta et al 2014] [Durak et al 2014] [Gingras et al 2014] [Ko and Park 2014] [Liu 2014] [Piloted Simulation and Pilot 2014] [Pool et al 2014] [Prosser and Smith 2014] [Reardon et al 2014] [Zaal et al 2014] [Altman 2015] [Becerra-Vargas 2015] [Berger et al 2015] [Carlson and Verberg 2015] [Jirgl et al 2015] [Lee and Kim 2015] [Miller et al 2015] [Rand et al 2015] [Schuchardt 2015] [Silvestre and Luckner 2015] [Wang and Chen 2015] [Xiaochen and Weishan 2015] [Zaal et al 2015] [Ackerman et al 2016] [Azarskov et al 2016] [Bryson and Rumpfkeil 2016] [Cai and Wang 2016] [Cotting et al 2016] [Jones 2016] [Lombardo et al 2016] [McCarley and Lindak 2016] [Merk and Roessingh 2016] [Pessôa and Trabasso 2016] [Romaniuk et al 2016] [Seedhouse 2016] [Zuo Jingxing et al 2016] [Ackerman et al 2017] [Bell and Waag 2017] [Chen and Ji 2017] [Cognitive Fidelity and the 2017] [Dalmeijer et al 2017] [Eerland et al 2017] [Flight Simulators in Pilot 2017] [Gmelin 2017] [Hamel 2017] [Hanke and Hahn 2017] [In-Flight Simulators and Fly-by-Wire/Light 2017] [Jones 2017] [Kaletka 2017] [Kanki et al 2017] [Limitations in Flight Simulator 2017] [Optimization and Piloted Simulation 2017] [Pausch et al 2017] [Pitz 2017] [Pitz 2017] [Simulator Fidelity and Training 2017] [Tian and Zhao 2017] [Tian et al 2017] [Wilhelm 2017] [Wu et al 2017] [Zaal et al 2017] [Zaal et al 2017] [Zaal et al 2017] [Alaimo et al 2018] [Bp et al 2018] [Broderick et al 2018] [Coulter et al 2018] [Davies and Gupta 2018] [Grant et al 2018] [Hamidani and Kunz 2018] [Ishak et al 2018] [Lintern and McMillan 2018] [Memon et al 2018] [Myers et al 2018] [Ng 2018] [Research and Modeling on 2018] [von Grünhagen et al 2018] [Zaal et al 2018] [Zhao 2018] [Zhou and Fang 2018] [An and Zhao 2019] [Aulia et al 2019] [Crowell 2019] [Fragnière et al 2019] [Irfan et al 2019] [Kraemer et al 2019] [Lavretsky 2019] [Lewkowicz 2019] [Mirza et al 2019] [Multi-domain Flight Simulation with 2019] [Wei et al 2019] [White et al 2019] [Zaal et al 2019] [Zaal 2019] [Zaichik et al 2019] [Zheng et al 2019] [Zhou and Zhao 2019] [Zhu et al 2019] [Advani 2020] [Chung et al 2020] [da Conceicao Matheus et al 2020] [Du et al 2020] [Huecas et al 2020] [Humphreys-Jennings et al 2020] [Kim and Kim 2020] [Mohanavelu et al 2020] [Qazani et al 2020] [Scholten et al 2020] [Villacís et al 2020] [Wei 2020] [Wu et al 2020] [Zhao et al 2020] [Avon et al 2021] [Chandrasekaran et al 2021] [Chen et al 2021] [Ellis et al 2021] [Florencio Henriques and Protásio de Souza 2021] [Geyer et al 2021] [Knyazev 2021] [Miletović et al 2021] [Nepomuceno and Annes Da Silva 2021] [Saastamoinen and Maunula 2021] [Shi 2021] [Shim 2021] [Taghizad et al 2021] [Thomas 2021] [Wang et al 2021] [Wei 2021] [Wu et al 2021] [Aláez et al 2022] [Design of an Engineering 2022] [Fang et al 2022] [Hebbar et al 2022] [Hon et al 2022] [Jianhong and Ramirez-Mendoza 2022] [Kabanyachyi and Hrytsan 2022] [Kabanyachyi and Hrytsan 2022] [Litt et al 2022] [Matheus Pena and Mauricio Becerra-Vargas 2022] [Na and Cho 2022] [Podzus et al 2022] [Research and Analysis on 2022] [Research on Flight Simulator 2022] [Rinaldi et al 2022] [Roscoe et al 2022] [Wang et al 2022] [Wei et al 2022] [Yu et al 2022] [Zanoni et al 2022] [Zhixin 2022] [Abuzied et al 2023] [Joosten et al 2023] [Kabanyachyi and Ibrahimoglu 2023] [Mingtan et al 2023] [Pham and Hong 2023] [Primatesta et al 2023] [Tong et al 2023] [Torelli et al 2023] [Vepa 2023] [Wallace et al 2023] [Wang 2023] [Comeau et al 2024] [da C. Matheus et al 2024] [Desbiens et al 2024] [Dr. Volodymyr Kabanyachi and Beycan İbrahimoğlu 2024] [Englebert et al 2024] [Farquerabao-Dimaano 2024] [Flight Simulator Training and 2024] [Ibrar 2024] [Jusko and Berger 2024] [Lewkowicz and Kowaleczko 2024] [Lukasiewicz et al 2024] [Löhr and Haines 2024] [Metodiev 2024] [Ramirez-Lopez 2024] [Rostami et al 2024] [Sprockhoff et al 2024] [Stupans et al 2024] [Wallace et al 2024] [Walter et al 2024] [Yahui et al 2024] [Yu et al 2024] [Dauphin et al 2025] [Gu 2025] [Jois 2025] [Kabanyachyi and Hrytsan 2025] [Miranda and Bidinotto 2025] [Moro et al 2025] [Portapas 2025] [Qu et al 2025] [Rendy et al 2025] [Somerville et al 2025] [Taylor et al 2025] [Uybarreta et al 2025] [Yi and Feng 2025] [Zhang et al 2025] [Zhao et al 2025] [Atmaca et al 2026] [Bachelder 2026] [Englebert and Tillema 2026] [Ioannis and Ioannis 2026] [Kawana et al 2026] [Somerville et al 2026] [Somerville et al 2026] [Wuwer et al 2026] [Yaylakaşı and Özer 2026] [Cho] [Fujizawa] [Halsmer] [Halsmer et al] [Jinkun Liu and Liang Han] [Knaak] [Lewis and Garratt] [Zaal et al] [Plumpton] [Qingwei Wang et al] [Rajaee] [Sagoo] [Swaine] [Visual Simulation for General] [Werner] [Xiao Yunshi et al] [Zinchiak]

The characteristic failure, being pilot-induced oscillation and rate limiting

The failure the instrument shares. Pilot-induced oscillation and aircraft-pilot coupling, actuator rate and position saturation and the anti-windup methods that treat it, and the describing functions and limit-cycle analysis that predict it.

402 records. [Makow 1962] [Levi and Nelson 1963] [Jud 1964] [Levadi and Cosgriff 1964] [Levi and Nelson 1964] [Makow and Hurd 1964] [Hirsch and McCormick 1965] [Mahalanabis and Nath 1965] [Bickart 1966] [Creer et al 1966] [Hirsch and McCORMICK 1966] [Lueg 1966] [DiFranco 1967] [Rajagopalan and Mishra 1969] [Duggar et al 1970] [Eichler 1970] [Neal 1970] [Teodorescu 1970] [Davison and Constantinescu 1971] [Kempel 1971] [Neal 1971] [Shneydor and Teodorescu 1971] [Smith and Berry 1975] [Lewis 1978] [Powers 1980] [Smith and Edwards 1980] [Gray and Nakhla 1981] [Hanson and Stengel 1981] [Smith 1981] [Taylor 1981] [Bailey and Smith 1982] [Carroll and Mehra 1982] [Miller et al 1982] [Powers 1982] [Smith 1982] [Shafer et al 1983] [Starke 1983] [Powers 1984] [Shafer et al 1984] [Twisdale and Kirsten 1984] [Taylor and Zhao 1985] [Bjorkman et al 1986] [Pillai and Nelson 1986] [Katebi and Katebi 1987] [Levison and Papazian 1987] [McNamara and Atherton 1987] [Green 1988] [McGough et al 1988] [Merriken et al 1988] [Pillai and Nelson 1988] [Tsay and Han 1988] [El-Sakkary 1990] [Mitchell et al 1991] [Heyns and Kruger 1992] [Pausder and Blanken 1992] [Blackwell 1993] [Pausder and Blanken 1993] [A’Harrah 1994] [Blanken and Pausder 1994] [Chan et al 1994] [Hess 1994] [Heyns and Kruger 1994] [McKay 1994] [Patra and Singh 1994] [Chan and Leung 1995] [Chan et al 1995] [Duda 1995] [Flight Vehicle Integration Panel 1995] [Hess and Snell 1995] [McRuer 1995] [Aharrah 1995] [van Schothorst et al 1995] [Bailey and Bidlack 1996] [Deppe et al 1996] [Kish et al 1996] [Klyde et al 1996] [Paoletti et al 1996] [Rundqwist and Hillgren 1996] [Ali 1997] [Anderson and Anderson 1997] [Duda et al 1997] [Goldfarb and Sirithanapipat 1997] [Hess 1997] [Hess and Hess 1997] [Hess et al 1997] [Iloputaife and Iloputaife 1997] [Kish et al 1997] [Klyde et al 1997] [Lauvdal et al 1997] [Murray 1997] [Nguyen et al 1997] [Repperger et al 1997] [Bailey and Schifferle 1998] [Duda 1998] [Hess and Stout 1998] [Impram 1998] [Jayasuriya 1998] [Lamendola and Anderson 1998] [Lin et al 1998] [Mehra and Prasanth 1998] [Niu and Tomizuka 1998] [Niu and Tomizuka 1998] [Schroeder et al 1998] [Shtessel et al 1998] [Zeyada et al 1998] [Goldfarb and Sirithanapipat 1999] [Klyde and Mitchell 1999] [Lin and Han 1999] [Markofski and Bailey 1999] [Mitchell 1999] [Tan and Atherton 1999] [Zeyada et al 1999] [Duus 2000] [Euntai Kim et al 2000] [Mitchell 2000] [Schroeder and Chung 2000] [Amato et al 2001] [Gilbreath and Markofski 2001] [Hu and Lin 2001] [Hu and Lin 2001] [Katayanagi 2001] [Schroeder et al 2001] [Shafer and Steinmetz 2001] [Shafer and Steinmetz 2001] [Turner and Postlethwaite 2001] [Actuator Saturation Control 2002] [Bateman et al 2002] [Engelberg 2002] [Eun et al 2002] [Hu et al 2002] [Klyde et al 2002] [Liebst et al 2002] [Smaili 2002] [Wu and Grigoriadis 2002] [Barbosa et al 2003] [Cao and Lin 2003] [Hanke 2003] [Jeram and Prasad 2003] [Jeram and Prasad 2003] [Klyde and Mitchell 2003] [Nataraj and Barve 2003] [Proctor and Johnson 2003] [Roman and Ponce 2003] [Tandale and Valasek 2003] [Witte et al 2003] [Yong-Yan Cao and Zongli Lin 2003] [Alcala et al 2004] [Benzaouia et al 2004] [Huang et al 2004] [Katayanagi 2004] [Klyde and Mitchell 2004] [Liu and Brandel 2004] [Mitchell et al 2004] [Rashidi and Rashidi 2004] [Wu and Lu 2004] [Wu and Perng 2004] [Kendall 2005] [Kienitz 2005] [Li 2005] [Maxwell and Dawson 2005] [Mitchell and Klyde 2005] [Nataraj and Barve 2005] [Shweyk and Weltz 2005] [Benzaouia et al 2006] [de Groot and Pavel 2006] [Duarte and Machado 2006] [Eftekhari and Katebi 2006] [Gatley et al 2006] [Kanamori and Tomizuka 2006] [Kienitz 2006] [Ma et al 2006] [Oliveira et al 2006] [Qing 2006] [Yuan-Jay et al 2006] [Brieger et al 2007] [Celere et al 2007] [Elliott 2007] [Guo et al 2007] [Rzucidlo and Tomczyk 2007] [Wang 2007] [Wang 2007] [Weltz et al 2007] [Zuo et al 2007] [Billings and Durlach 2008] [Chao Shen et al 2008] [Mitchell and Klyde 2008] [Ossmann et al 2008] [Yong-Mei Ma and Guang-Hong Yang 2008] [Brieger et al 2009] [Guan and Yang 2009] [Guan and Yang 2009] [Liu and Zhou 2009] [Ma and Boukas 2009] [Meng and Li 2009] [Sbarbaro et al 2009] [Shi et al 2009] [Adaptive Reliable Control with 2010] [Jie Meng et al 2010] [Liu and Gao 2010] [Ma and Yang 2010] [Oliveira et al 2010] [Wu and Lin 2010] [Yildiz 2010] [Brito 2011] [Ma et al 2011] [Mariano et al 2011] [Ogunleye and Subbarao 2011] [Ting and Chang 2011] [Tsay 2011] [Zongli Lin and Xiongjun Wu 2011] [Kiener et al 2012] [Kundu and Negi 2012] [Linna Zhou and Chunyu Yang 2012] [Negi et al 2012] [Peni et al 2012] [Wang et al 2012] [Wu and Lin 2012] [Zhang and Zhao 2012] [Zhang et al 2012] [Zhang et al 2012] [Cheok Kah Wei and Almurib 2013] [Craun et al 2013] [Fu et al 2013] [Jones and Jump 2013] [Kumar et al 2013] [Liu and Lone 2013] [Oliveira et al 2013] [Oliveira et al 2013] [Pană 2013] [Quan 2013] [Yu and Liu 2013] [Andreea-Irina and Achim 2014] [Cai et al 2014] [Li et al 2014] [Liu and Xi 2014] [Lu and Jump 2014] [Pang et al 2014] [Wang and Zhao 2014] [Yilmaz et al 2014] [Yuan and Wu 2014] [Zhang et al 2014] [Zítek et al 2014] [A comparative study of 2015] [Andrievsky et al 2015] [Forbes 2015] [Huang et al 2015] [Iwai and Ushio 2015] [Jing and Shen 2015] [Kao et al 2015] [Ma and Yan 2015] [Naizhou et al 2015] [Qi and Gao 2015] [Qi et al 2015] [Ran et al 2015] [Shen and Qiu 2015] [Wakaiki et al 2015] [Wang et al 2015] [Wei and Zheng 2015] [Wu et al 2015] [Barbosa and Machado 2016] [Chen 2016] [Gray 2016] [Li et al 2016] [Liang Qu et al 2016] [Ma et al 2016] [Mandal and Gu 2016] [Nassirharand and Teh 2016] [Quan and Ma 2016] [Ran et al 2016] [Reineh et al 2016] [Turner et al 2016] [Yang et al 2016] [Yang et al 2016] [Yang et al 2016] [Zhang et al 2016] [Zhang et al 2016] [Zhu et al 2016] [Chandra Pal and Negi 2017] [Dey et al 2017] [Du et al 2017] [He et al 2017] [Kanamori and Saga 2017] [Kanamori and Saga 2017] [Orr and Dennehy 2017] [Pal and Negi 2017] [Tran et al 2017] [Xiang et al 2017] [Yin and Wang 2017] [Zhou and Ma 2017] [Afloare et al 2018] [Drewiacki et al 2018] [Iwaki et al 2018] [Li and Lin 2018] [Liu et al 2018] [Yu et al 2018] [Zhang and Su 2018] [Zhang et al 2018] [Zhou et al 2018] [Cheng et al 2019] [Liu et al 2019] [Mo and Li 2019] [Rachid et al 2019] [Wan et al 2019] [Wang et al 2019] [Xu et al 2019] [Yan et al 2019] [Yang et al 2019] [Yang et al 2019] [Yao 2019] [Yin et al 2019] [You et al 2019] [You et al 2019] [Dehnert et al 2020] [Efremov et al 2020] [Enjiao et al 2020] [Geng et al 2020] [Klyde et al 2020] [Klyde et al 2020] [Yoon and Johnson 2020] [Zhang et al 2020] [Zhu et al 2020] [Bidinotto et al 2021] [Dakua and Pati 2021] [Hu et al 2021] [Lerch et al 2021] [Naamane and Tissir 2021] [Nguyen et al 2021] [Tuan et al 2021] [Wang et al 2021] [Xu and Wu 2021] [Zaitceva 2021] [Zaitceva and Andrievsky 2021] [Zaytseva et al 2021] [Zhang et al 2021] [Efremov et al 2022] [Houti et al 2022] [Huang et al 2022] [Verma and Negi 2022] [Adaptive Fault-Tolerant Control with 2023] [Andrievsky and Zaitceva 2023] [Bachelder and Aponso 2023] [Chang et al 2023] [Newton and Kroo 2023] [Park 2023] [Rezaei and Khosravi 2023] [Shams et al 2023] [Turner et al 2023] [Bachelder et al 2024] [Efremov et al 2024] [Ge et al 2024] [Komaee 2024] [Lai et al 2024] [Lai et al 2024] [Maione 2024] [Newton and Kroo 2024] [Nuss 2024] [Rathore et al 2024] [Shreya et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Xie 2024] [Xu and Zhang 2024] [Bechelder et al 2025] [Hao et al 2025] [Lai et al 2025] [Li and Zhang 2025] [Nelson et al 2025] [Newton and Kroo 2025] [Palmeira et al 2025] [Wang and Xu 2025] [Wu et al 2025] [Yang and Li 2025] [Yang and Li 2025] [yuan and Zhang 2025] [Ünen and Yıldız 2025] [Abidin et al 2026] [Ding 2026] [Habboush and Yildiz 2026] [Han and Liu 2026] [Jin et al 2026] [Shams et al 2026] [Shi et al 2026] [Yuan and Zhang 2026] [Bekiroglu] [Cao and Lin] [Dower] [Duarte and Machado] [Fadali and Chachavalvoong] [Fen Wu] [Fen Wu and Soto] [FTCSMP with Actuator Saturation] [Hess] [Hippe] [Koivo et al] [Mitchell et al] [Nelson] [Pachter et al] [Piper and Kwatny] [Rundqwist and Stahl-Gunnarsson] [Shams] [Urbano] [Weigang Niu and Tomizuka] [Yong-Yan Cao and Zongli Lin]

The measurement, being handling and flying qualities

The readout. Handling and flying qualities criteria, specifications and evaluations for aeroplanes, rotorcraft, spacecraft and uncrewed aircraft, and the Cooper-Harper and related pilot rating scales.

645 records. [Anderson and Cooper 1947] [Huff 1949] [Kraft et al 1953] [Amer and Tapscott 1954] [Newell and Campbell 1954] [Daughaday and Duwaldt 1955] [Biernson 1958] [Anderson 1960] [Garren 1961] [Bray 1963] [Breul 1963] [Carter et al 1963] [Chalk 1963] [Kidd and Bull 1963] [Martin 1963] [Newell 1963] [Clark 1964] [Gray 1964] [Higgins and Shomber 1964] [Westbrook 1964] [Ashkenas 1965] [Ashkenas 1965] [Ashkenas 1965] [Carlson et al 1965] [Cromwell and Koven 1965] [Curry et al 1965] [Gertsen and Shomber 1965] [Higgins and Shomber 1965] [Johnston et al 1965] [Miller and Clark 1965] [Nettleton 1965] [Teper and Stapleford 1965] [Westbrook 1965] [Adams et al 1966] [Anderson 1966] [Barber et al 1966] [Cheatham and Hackler 1966] [Jackson and Snyder 1966] [Teper and Stapleford 1966] [Bleeg et al 1967] [Franklin and Miller 1967] [Shomber and Gertsen 1967] [Blackburn 1968] [Carter and Cooper 1968] [Chalk and Wilson 1968] [Griffin and Bellaire 1968] [Larrabee and Tymczyszyn 1968] [Miller and Franklin 1968] [Bihrle 1969] [Chalk and Wilson 1969] [Difranco 1969] [Harper and Sardanowsky 1969] [Miller 1969] [Miyajima 1969] [Mudd 1969] [Rohling 1969] [Adams and Hatch 1970] [Anderson 1970] [Armstrong 1970] [Barbini et al 1970] [Benson et al 1970] [Berry and Powers 1970] [Brown 1970] [Difranco 1970] [Holleman 1970] [Franklin 1970] [Gallagher 1970] [Harper et al 1970] [Miller 1970] [Neal and Smith 1970] [A’Harrah and Lockenour 1971] [Adams and Hatch 1971] [Ashkenas 1971] [Franklin 1971] [Franklin 1971] [Franklin 1971] [Gallagher 1971] [Hall 1971] [Kempel 1971] [Key 1971] [Kriechbaum and Stineman 1971] [Montgomery 1971] [Neal and Smith 1971] [Ritter et al 1971] [Adams 1972] [Anderson and Schroers 1972] [Chevalier and Burke 1972] [Franklin 1972] [Giles 1972] [Kriechbaum and Stineman 1972] [Montgomery 1972] [Schy 1972] [Wasicko 1972] [Ashkenas et al 1973] [Crother et al 1973] [Hall et al 1973] [Nagata et al 1973] [Smetana et al 1973] [Wanner 1973] [Boothe et al 1974] [Chen and Boothe 1974] [Hall et al 1974] [Johnston and Hogge 1974] [Johnston et al 1974] [Marr and Roderick 1974] [Piranian 1974] [Place et al 1974] [Smith 1974] [Bailes et al 1975] [Bryant and Trueblood 1975] [Gerdes and Hynes 1975] [Hoh 1975] [Marr and Roderick 1975] [Moorhouse and Jenkins 1975] [Sudderth et al 1975] [Bowes and Miller 1976] [Dooley 1976] [Nagy and Kirsten 1976] [Woodcock and George 1976] [Hodgkinson and Lamanna 1977] [Jacobson and Joshi 1977] [Ohta et al 1977] [Smith 1977] [Yen and Swaim 1977] [Hall et al 1978] [Jacobson and Joshi 1978] [Onstott and Faulkner 1978] [Stengel and Miller 1978] [Swaim 1978] [Whitbeck and Hofmann 1978] [Black and Moorhouse 1979] [Chance Vought Corp Dallas Tx 1979] [Gerken 1979] [Kereliuk and Sinclair 1979] [Kuczynski et al 1979] [Moorhouse 1979] [Ohta et al 1979] [Smith and Geddes 1979] [Swaim and Yen 1979] [Swaim 1979] [Chalk 1980] [Forrest and Lebacqz 1980] [Hess 1980] [Kuczynski et al 1980] [Pausder and Gmelin 1980] [Radford and Andrisani 1980] [Radford et al 1980] [Sammonds and Bunnell 1980] [Shafer 1980] [Sliwa 1980] [Talbot et al 1980] [Van Dam et al 1980] [Atmospheric disturbance models and 1981] [Bailey and Smith 1981] [Berry 1981] [Bischoff 1981] [Feather and Joshi 1981] [Hess 1981] [Hoh et al 1981] [Joshi and Rickard 1981] [Lebacqz et al 1981] [Levison and Rickard 1981] [Pischoff 1981] [Sammonds and Bunnell 1981] [Swaim 1981] [van Dam et al 1981] [Ashkenas 1982] [Bacon and Schmidt 1982] [Bar-Gill et al 1982] [Berry 1982] [Brauser 1982] [Clark 1982] [Corliss 1982] [Fuller and Moorhouse 1982] [Goldstein 1982] [Helicopter Handling Qualities 1982] [Hess 1982] [Hodgkinson et al 1982] [Hoh 1982] [Key 1982] [Levison 1982] [Mitchell and Hoh 1982] [Myers et al 1982] [Myers et al 1982] [Ohta et al 1982] [Tischler and Hoh 1982] [Weingarten and Chalk 1982] [Bischoff 1983] [Bischoff and Palmer 1983] [Boeing Vertol Co Philadelphia Pa 1983] [Brauser 1983] [Corliss et al 1983] [Harris and Beerman 1983] [Hoh and Mitchell 1983] [Meyer 1983] [Mitchell and Hoh 1983] [Schmidt 1983] [Schuler 1983] [Stengel and Bar-Gill 1983] [Weiss 1983] [Anderson 1984] [Ashkenas 1984] [Bacon and Schmidt 1984] [Berry 1984] [Chen 1984] [Grantham 1984] [Harper and Cooper 1984] [Hemingway 1984] [Hess 1984] [Onstott et al 1984] [Quinn and Cutchins 1984] [Radford and Andrisani 1984] [Ruflin and Grantham 1984] [Wood 1984] [Aiken 1985] [Anderson 1985] [Bivens 1985] [Bivens 1985] [Breul et al 1985] [Citurs and Caton 1985] [Gilbert 1985] [Harris et al 1985] [Innocenti 1985] [Mooij 1985] [Mooij 1985] [Mooij 1985] [Rynaski 1985] [Sarrafian and Powers 1985] [Stengel 1985] [Tuck 1985] [Aiken 1986] [Bailey 1986] [Baillie and Hoh 1986] [Bivens 1986] [Dabundo et al 1986] [Harper and Cooper 1986] [Peahl et al 1986] [Powers 1986] [Rynaski et al 1986] [Smith 1986] [Warr et al 1986] [Weingarten et al 1986] [Wilhelm and Schafranek 1986] [Woodcock and Browne 1986] [Hess 1987] [Iloputaife and Ma 1987] [Myers et al 1987] [Shibata et al 1987] [Wendel 1987] [Aiken et al 1988] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1988] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1988] [Booz 1988] [Chen et al 1988] [Hodgkinson et al 1988] [Hoh 1988] [Sarrafian and Powers 1988] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1989] [Bosworth and Cox 1989] [Celi 1989] [Costigan and Calico 1989] [Ford 1989] [Franklin et al 1989] [Initial flight test of 1989] [Moorhouse et al 1989] [Wilson and Riley 1989] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1990] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1990] [Bailey 1990] [Bailey and Knotts 1990] [Baillie 1990] [Cappetta and Johns 1990] [Garrard and Low 1990] [Gibson 1990] [Hindson et al 1990] [Hodgkinson et al 1990] [Hoh 1990] [Leggett et al 1990] [Meyer and Husband 1990] [Moorhouse 1990] [Moorhouse 1990] [Riley and Wilson 1990] [Butler and Ham 1991] [Celi 1991] [Chetty and Lakshmi 1991] [Hong et al 1991] [Huber et al 1991] [Lewis et al 1991] [Low and Garrard 1991] [Tischler et al 1991] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1992] [Breneman and Lower 1992] [Chetty and Raol 1992] [Hanks and Ham 1992] [Hoh et al 1992] [Manning and Gleason 1992] [Walsh 1992] [Cappetta 1993] [Blanken and Whalley 1993] [Mitchell and Hart 1993] [Green et al 1993] [King 1993] [Jackson et al 1993] [Funk et al 1993] [Ham et al 1993] [Low and Garrard 1993] [Moennich and Dalldorff 1993] [Ockier 1993] [Rossitto and Hodgkinson 1993] [Walsh 1993] [Wilson et al 1993] [Anderson and Ormiston 1994] [Doman and Andrisani 1994] [Goto et al 1994] [Hess and Henderson 1994] [Leggett and Cord 1994] [Mouritsen 1994] [Reid et al 1994] [Sachs et al 1994] [Shubert et al 1994] [Solies 1994] [Wilson et al 1994] [Wilson et al 1994] [Blanken et al 1995] [Brandon et al 1995] [Celi et al 1995] [Doman 1995] [Ham et al 1995] [Hess 1995] [Hess 1995] [Klyde et al 1995] [Perhinschi and Prasad 1995] [Reed 1995] [Solies 1995] [Chung et al 1996] [Davidson and Andrisani 1996] [Goto and Ghatani 1996] [Gungras et al 1996] [Howard et al 1996] [Wichman et al 1996] [Ockier 1996] [Cook 1997] [Cox and Jackson 1997] [Edwards et al 1997] [Guglieri et al 1997] [Klyde et al 1997] [Long and Williams 1997] [Peters et al 1997] [Sahasrabudhe and Celi 1997] [Sahasrabudhe et al 1997] [Baillie et al 1998] [Carignan and Gubbels 1998] [Efremov et al 1998] [Evangelou 1998] [Flying Qualities and Flight 1998] [Foringer and Leggett 1998] [Gautrey and Cook 1998] [Leacock and Thomson 1998] [Perhinschi 1998] [Bouwer and Taghizad 1999] [Cheung et al 1999] [Doman 1999] [Sachs 1999] [Carignan et al 2000] [Carter and Stoliker 2000] [Cox and Marshall 2000] [Curry and Batterson 2000] [d and Menichetti 2000] [Handling qualities 2000] [Harris 2000] [Harris et al 2000] [High flying quality from 2000] [Morelli 2000] [Morelli 2000] [Roberts et al 2000] [Ryu and Andrisani 2000] [Ryu and Andrisani 2000] [Shweyk et al 2000] [Biezad and Bole 2001] [Guglieri 2001] [Lee et al 2001] [Mitchell and Klyde 2001] [Park et al 2001] [Teofilatto 2001] [Tomczyk 2001] [Franklin 2002] [Gubbels et al 2002] [Hoh and Heffley 2002] [Lateral-Directional Flying Qualities in 2002] [Lateral-Directional Flying Qualities in 2002] [Longitudinal Flying Qualities in 2002] [Longitudinal Flying Qualities in 2002] [Tomczyk 2002] [Turner et al 2002] [Walker and Allen 2002] [Bischoff et al 2003] [Cameron et al 2003] [Flying Qualities 2003] [Hodgkinson 2003] [Lee et al 2003] [Mitchell et al 2003] [Rodchenko et al 2003] [Ryu and Andrisani 2003] [Steer 2003] [Bagiev et al 2004] [Choksey and Gonzalez II 2004] [Field et al 2004] [Hess 2004] [Malaek and Sajjadi Kia 2004] [Brisset and Mézan 2005] [Lawrence and Padfield 2005] [Lemaignan 2005] [Pourtakdoust and Shajiee 2005] [Rysdyk and Calise 2005] [Fusato and Celi 2006] [Hoh et al 2006] [Kalinowski et al 2006] [Lawrence and Padfield 2006] [Padfield 2006] [Rogalski and Dołęga 2006] [Saussié et al 2006] [Blanken et al 2007] [Cameron and Padfield 2007] [Chalk 2007] [Cheng et al 2007] [Cook 2007] [Flying Qualities Forms of 2007] [Flying Qualities Objective Assessment 2007] [Flying Qualities Subjective Assessment 2007] [Walker et al 2007] [Donmez et al 2008] [Gray 2008] [Handling Qualities Analysis 2008] [Malaek and Karimi 2008] [Tomczyk 2008] [Vijaya Kumar et al 2008] [Wolfram et al 2008] [Al-Gilani et al 2009] [Bagiev and Thomson 2009] [Bailey et al 2009] [Chang et al 2009] [Cotting 2009] [Cárdenas et al 2009] [Gray 2009] [Handling Qualities Workshop 40 2009] [He et al 2009] [Hess 2009] [Hess 2009] [Mitchell et al 2009] [Nicoll and Mitchell 2009] [Oelker et al 2009] [Yomchinda et al 2009] [Bilimoria and Mueller 2010] [Campbell et al 2010] [Cooke 2010] [Cotting 2010] [Hess 2010] [Jackson and Proffitt 2010] [Kahveci and Ioannou 2010] [Klyde et al 2010] [Lusardi et al 2010] [Nicolosi et al 2010] [Risse et al 2010] [Schillings et al 2010] [Wenqian et al 2010] [Aircraft lateral-directional handling qualities 2011] [Aircraft longitudinal handling qualities 2011] [Capello et al 2011] [Cotting 2011] [Kun et al 2011] [Lemery et al 2011] [Malpica et al 2011] [Peterson and Grant 2011] [Rotorcraft handling qualities design 2011] [Saussié et al 2011] [Schönenberg 2011] [Srinathkumar 2011] [Berger et al 2012] [Bilimoria and Mueller 2012] [Bingaman 2012] [Cherepinsky et al 2012] [Luria et al 2012] [Lusardi et al 2012] [Malpica et al 2012] [Strand and Ennis 2012] [Zhou et al 2012] [Berger et al 2013] [Cook 2013] [Hess and Joyce 2013] [Hoefinger and Blanken 2013] [Malpica and Lusardi 2013] [Orra et al 2013] [Padfield 2013] [Schuck et al 2013] [Schönenberg 2013] [Greene et al 2014] [Lantzsch et al 2014] [Lawrence 2014] [Salem et al 2014] [Wang et al 2014] [Baughman and Longeauay 2015] [Fell et al 2015] [Mansor et al 2015] [Simsek and Tekinalp 2015] [Sissingh 2015] [Srinathkumar 2015] [Berger et al 2016] [Drewiacki et al 2016] [Falcão Arantes Filho and de Andrade 2016] [Goetzendorf-Grabowski and Antoniewski 2016] [Hess 2016] [Kim and Kunz 2016] [Nonnenmacher and Jones 2016] [Pritchard et al 2016] [Tritschler et al 2016] [Zhang and Li 2016] [Berger et al 2017] [Cosenza and Vos 2017] [Elwahab et al 2017] [Fegely et al 2017] [Fegely et al 2017] [Ferguson et al 2017] [Handling Qualities and Control 2017] [Horn et al 2017] [Klein et al 2017] [Krag and Gmelin 2017] [Onur et al 2017] [Rogers et al 2017] [Thorsen and Horn 2017] [Wang et al 2017] [Zhang et al 2017] [Zhou et al 2017] [Alberghini and Lee 2018] [Dussart et al 2018] [Flying Qualities Forms of 2018] [Flying Qualities Objective Assessment 2018] [Flying Qualities Subjective Assessment 2018] [Flying Qualities The Story 2018] [Gerosa et al 2018] [Hoh and Mitchell 2018] [Kendall 2018] [Lawrence et al 2018] [Tiltrotor Aircraft Modelling and 2018] [Berger et al 2019] [Callaghan and Kunz 2019] [Cotting et al 2019] [Dussart et al 2019] [Humphreys-Jennings et al 2019] [Khan 2019] [Mansikka et al 2019] [Mitchell 2019] [Prabhakar et al 2019] [Puig - Navarro et al 2019] [Rauer 2019] [Bachelder and Aponso 2020] [Bachelder and Aponso 2020] [Berger et al 2020] [Mitchell et al 2020] [Dotson et al 2020] [Drewiacki et al 2020] [Harris et al 2020] [Jing et al 2020] [jingwei and jiaming 2020] [Klyde et al 2020] [Lee et al 2020] [Portapas and Cooke 2020] [Saetti and Rogers 2020] [Saetti and Rogers 2020] [Saetti et al 2020] [Smith 2020] [Bachelder and Aponso 2021] [Bachelder et al 2021] [Berger et al 2021] [Cameron et al 2021] [Campos and Marques 2021] [Configuration Development and Flying 2021] [Cooper et al 2021] [Díaz García et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Klyde et al 2021] [Memon et al 2021] [Raffel et al 2021] [Saporito et al 2021] [Walter et al 2021] [Wang et al 2021] [Bachelder and Aponso 2022] [Erturk et al 2022] [Ji et al 2022] [John 2022] [Osborn-Hoff et al 2022] [Kim et al 2022] [Zanoni et al 2022] [Bachelder et al 2023] [Bachelder et al 2023] [Bachelder et al 2023] [Gu et al 2023] [Jones et al 2023] [Lusardi 2023] [Ogden 2023] [Raol and Singh 2023] [Rowan and Dogan 2023] [Scroggs et al 2023] [Smith 2023] [Willebeek-LeMair and Rhinehart 2023] [Berger et al 2024] [Lampton et al 2024] [Lampton et al 2024] [Saetti and Rogers 2024] [Stability, Control, and Handling 2024] [Uybarreta et al 2024] [Alexander 2025] [Bai and Zhang 2025] [Berger et al 2025] [Berger et al 2025] [Drewiacki et al 2025] [Favaro et al 2025] [Hosseini et al 2025] [Jansen and Van Kampen 2025] [Loranchet et al 2025] [Newton 2025] [Riccardi et al 2025] [Schmidt and Jusko 2025] [Schwithal et al 2025] [Shubert and Jones 2025] [Uybarreta et al 2025] [Bachelder 2026] [Doko and Sasongko 2026] [Lee et al 2026] [Musso et al 2026] [Potvin and Grant 2026] [Riboldi et al 2026] [Schmidt and Jusko 2026] [Design Objectives for Flying] [Design Objectives For Handling] [Dude and Duus] [Litaker et al] [Hentabli et al] [Aires et al] [Pasha et al] [Saucez] [Saussie et al] [Soban et al] [Tanaka and Washizu] [Tokutake and Itoh] [Tseng et al]

The human being deceived, and the models made of that human

The pilot as a controller. Manual control and models of the human operator, tracking studies whose subject is the operator’s control behaviour, the measurement of pilot workload, and trust in automation.

307 records. [Thelen 1953] [McGuire 1954] [McGuire 1954] [Chernikoff and Taylor 1957] [Hartman 1957] [Sweeney et al 1958] [Kashler 1961] [Muckler 1961] [North and Lomnicki 1961] [Schwartz 1961] [Elkind and Darley 1963] [Poulton 1963] [Cannon and Eppler 1964] [Mitchell 1964] [Bekey et al 1965] [Cannon and Eppler 1965] [Hahn 1965] [Lathrop 1965] [McRuer 1965] [Meiry and Young 1965] [Sampson and Elkin 1965] [Verdi et al 1965] [Elkind and Levison 1966] [Gagne and Wierwille 1966] [Gagne and Wierwille 1966] [Gould and Fu 1966] [Jex et al 1966] [McRuer 1966] [Obermayer et al 1966] [Seeley and Bliss 1966] [Smith 1966] [Stapleford et al 1966] [Weir and Phatak 1966] [Elkind and Levison 1967] [Muckler and Obermayer 1967] [Stapleford et al 1967] [Edwards and Wingrove 1968] [Vickers 1968] [Ziegler and Cheknikoee 1968] [Creer and Denery 1969] [Shirley 1969] [Wierenga 1969] [Baron et al 1970] [Bergeron 1970] [Burgett 1970] [Gilson et al 1970] [Gordon-Smith 1970] [Kleinman et al 1970] [Kleinman et al 1970] [Shirley 1970] [Wierenga 1970] [Hess 1971] [Spyker et al 1971] [Guercio and Wall 1972] [Jennings et al 1972] [Vinje and Pitkin 1972] [Baron 1973] [Baron and Levison 1973] [Durrett 1973] [Flight deck environment and 1973] [Mooij 1973] [Phatak and Weinert 1973] [Rolfe and Lindsay 1973] [Anderson 1974] [Application of the optimal 1974] [Cunningham and Swaim 1974] [Harvey and Dillow 1974] [Hess and Teichgraber 1974] [Ino’oka 1974] [Kleinman and Killingsworth 1974] [Pollard and Hannen 1974] [Winn and Lewis II 1974] [Hess 1976] [Kao 1976] [Phatak et al 1976] [Rault 1976] [Ridge and Bayes Identification 1976] [Schmid et al 1976] [Smit 1976] [Winn and Lewis 1976] [Baron and Levison 1977] [Chiles 1977] [Gilson et al 1977] [Hess 1977] [Kao 1977] [Pilot workload and fatigue 1977] [Shirachi and Shirley 1977] [Vanlunteren 1977] [Cavalli 1978] [Harris et al 1978] [Jagacinski and Miller 1978] [Jagacinski et al 1978] [Kao and Smith 1978] [Rezek 1978] [Schmidt 1978] [Shirley 1978] [Studies on pilot workload 1978] [Washizu et al 1978] [Wolf 1978] [Assessing pilot workload. Advisory 1979] [Caraux and Wanner 1979] [Lambregts and Cannon 1979] [Muralidharan et al 1979] [Rault 1979] [Schmidt 1979] [Brictson and Young 1980] [Caraux and Wanner 1980] [Engler et al 1980] [Hess 1981] [Hess 1981] [Kenyon 1981] [Levison et al 1981] [Agarwal et al 1982] [Broussard and Berry 1982] [Caglayan and Levison 1982] [Sinha 1982] [Heffley 1983] [Schiflett 1983] [Schmidt 1983] [Biezad and Schmidt 1984] [Crites 1984] [Hart et al 1984] [Hart and Sheridan 1984] [Lindholm et al 1984] [The effects of impacts 1984] [Hess 1985] [Lindholm and Sisson 1985] [Schmidt 1985] [Wierwille et al 1985] [Allen et al 1986] [Physiological assessment of pilot 1986] [Wickens et al 1986] [Biferno 1987] [Gozzo and Vienneau 1987] [Hart 1987] [Hart and Hauser 1987] [Shively et al 1987] [Barr et al 1988] [Garg and Schmidt 1988] [Glenn 1988] [McLeod and Griffin 1988] [Measurement of Operator Workload 1988] [Papa and Stoliker 1988] [Stern et al 1988] [Thompson and McRuer 1988] [Bao-Sheng and Zhi-Qiang 1989] [Corwin 1989] [Corwin et al 1989] [Merhav 1989] [Roscoe 1989] [Bao-Sheng and Zhi-Qiang 1990] [Dixon et al 1990] [Effects of whole-body vibration 1990] [Hameluck 1990] [Heart rate variability and 1990] [Innocenti and Minciotti 1990] [McCord 1991] [Metalis 1991] [The ergonomic evaluation of 1991] [Corwin 1992] [Davidson and Schmidt 1992] [Display formatting techniques for 1992] [Kantowitz 1992] [McLeod and Griffin 1993] [Schroeder 1993] [Shaw 1993] [Sirevaag et al 1993] [Tanaka 1993] [Tanaka 1993] [Anderson 1994] [Szoboszlay et al 1995] [Avans and Smith 1996] [Doman and Anderson 1996] [Watson et al 1996] [Doman et al 1997] [Doman and Anderson 2000] [Phillips and Anderson 2000] [Bauschat 2001] [Bradley and Macdonald 2001] [Van Orden 2001] [Wilkins 2001] [Brown and Galster 2004] [Madhavan and Wiegmann 2004] [Shibata et al 2005] [Voorheis et al 2005] [Bridges et al 2006] [van den Berg et al 2007] [Berger et al 2008] [Brieger et al 2008] [Zaal et al 2008] [Hodge et al 2009] [Zaal et al 2009] [Celik and Ertugrul 2010] [Durso and Alexander 2010] [Jalovecký and Janů 2010] [Zolner et al 2010] [Castelli et al 2011] [Dan 2011] [Schneider et al 2011] [Thomas 2011] [Zaal and Sweet 2011] [He et al 2012] [Guo et al 2013] [Hess and Moore 2013] [Larrabee et al 2013] [Li et al 2013] [Blahaya and Pavlova 2014] [Doyon-Poulin et al 2014] [Hanson et al 2014] [Hicks et al 2014] [Masarati et al 2014] [Wei et al 2014] [Aiba et al 2015] [Dai et al 2015] [Myers et al 2015] [Serzhantova and Ushakov 2015] [Tsuruhara et al 2015] [Hess 2016] [Mandal and Gu 2016] [Obšilová et al 2016] [Serzhantova and Ushakov 2016] [Andre et al 2017] [Cheol Le 2017] [Lusardi et al 2017] [Martinez-Garcia et al 2017] [Popovici and Zaal 2017] [Schreiter et al 2017] [Vrdoljak et al 2017] [Bachelder et al 2018] [Hollands and Neyedli 2018] [Jagacinski and Flach 2018] [Körber 2018] [Yan and Chen 2018] [Bachelder and Godfroy-Cooper 2019] [Bachelder et al 2019] [He et al 2019] [Kobayashi and Yamanaka 2019] [Law et al 2019] [Lusardi et al 2019] [Tohidi and Yildiz 2019] [Yan and Chen 2019] [Zhang et al 2019] [Andrews et al 2020] [Bachelder 2020] [Comandur et al 2020] [Efremov et al 2020] [Hajra et al 2020] [Paul and Rhinehart 2020] [Škvareková et al 2020] [Alaimo et al 2021] [Bachelder and Aponso 2021] [Bachelder et al 2021] [Braarud 2021] [Hess 2021] [Jennings et al 2021] [Miller 2021] [Plichta and Škvareková 2021] [Schwerd and Schulte 2021] [Efremov et al 2022] [Habboush and Yildiz 2022] [Kohn 2022] [Masters and Schulte 2022] [Tohidi and Yildiz 2022] [Yu et al 2022] [Jakimovska et al 2023] [Stavrev and Ginchev 2023] [Sturrock and Fairburn 2023] [Yan et al 2023] [Zhang et al 2023] [Zhu et al 2023] [Zhu et al 2023] [Analysis of stress effects 2024] [Ayala et al 2024] [Biernacki and Lewkowicz 2024] [Chen et al 2024] [chen et al 2024] [Efremov et al 2024] [Hu et al 2024] [Procházková et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Xu et al 2024] [Barragan et al 2025] [Cui et al 2025] [Duggan et al 2025] [Yan et al 2025] [Yang 2025] [Yuan et al 2025] [Ding et al 2026] [Duggan et al 2026] [Johnson and Gallegos 2026] [Kalra and Greiwe 2026] [Procházková and Juračka 2026] [Wang et al 2026] [Xu et al 2026] [Yi 2026] [Al-barzinji] [Anderson] [Anderson] [Cumelles Céspedes] [Daryanian] [Fraser] [Katz and Simpson] [Perkins] [Prasad and Schmidt] [Reichlen et al] [Schuppe] [Trujillo]

The aeroplane, the laboratory and the programmes flown on it

This airframe and its owners. The F-16 family and its flight control system, the VISTA and MATV programmes, the AFTI/F-16, Calspan and the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory with their other variable-stability aeroplanes, and the test pilot school that flies the aeroplane.

73 records. [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1962] [Saravo 1976] [Schoonover 1976] [Ammons 1979] [Timpson 1981] [Klein and Hollister 1982] [Fitzpatrick et al 1983] [Harney et al 1983] [Ishmael and McMonagle 1983] [Mackall et al 1983] [McMonagle 1983] [Toles and Anderson 1983] [Batterson and Klein 1984] [Gawron and Knotts 1984] [Ishmael et al 1984] [Knotts 1984] [Mackall 1984] [Chalk and Radford 1985] [Clayton and Haller 1985] [Clayton et al 1985] [Dowden and Bessette 1987] [Garlington and Tyrrell 1988] [Dunbar and Dargan 1989] [Butterfield 1990] [Gleason et al 1992] [Sotello et al 1992] [Fox and Forrest 1993] [Adams et al 1994] [Kramer and Smith 1994] [Offerman 1994] [Sweeney and Gerzanics 1994] [Zwerneman and Eller 1994] [Reigelsperger et al 1995] [Cameron 1997] [McKeehen and Cord 1997] [Underhill et al 1997] [Bailey and Landers 1998] [Wetzel and Anderson 1998] [Bailey and Landers 1999] [Evangelou et al 2001] [Burns 2004] [Lu et al 2004] [McGrath 2005] [Minor et al 2005] [Burns and Bruckner 2006] [Sonneveldt et al 2006] [Burns et al 2007] [Hawkes and White 2007] [MacDonald and Shepherd 2008] [Minor 2008] [Lu and Wu 2009] [Droste and Walker 2010] [Bronder et al 2012] [Appendix A F-16 Model 2015] [Cotting 2016] [Cotting et al 2018] [Knapp et al 2018] [Montes et al 2018] [Ackerman et al 2019] [Cotting 2019] [Edmonson and Kemper 2019] [Fighting Falcon 2021] [Mersha et al 2021] [Walther 2022] [Circiu 2023] [Purnawan et al 2024] [Aditya Hutabarat and Kusumahardi 2025] [Dana Fanggidae and Kusumahardi 2025] [Tischner and Hunsaker 2026] [Klein and Hollister] [Menke and Maybeck] [Nguyen et al] [Rajasekaran and Doddington]

The autonomy the X number was for

What the aeroplane now hosts. Autonomous and learning agents for air combat manoeuvring, manned-unmanned teaming, pursuit-evasion between aircraft, and the run-time assurance, verification and validation of autonomous systems, whatever vehicle they control.

412 records. [Anderson and Othling 1971] [Merz 1975] [Merz and Hague 1977] [Hillberg and Jaermark 1983] [Shinar 1983] [Shinar 1984] [Ardema and Rajan 1987] [Ardema et al 1987] [Austin et al 1987] [Moritz et al 1987] [Prasad and Rajan 1987] [Rodin et al 1987] [Williams et al 1989] [Menon and Duke 1990] [Vinokurov et al 1992] [Ciftcioglu and Turkcan 1993] [Vinokurov et al 1993] [Attitude control system of 1994] [Segal and Miloh 1996] [Peterson 1998] [Raivio and Ehtamo 2000] [Tran et al 2002] [Angermuller and Hall 2003] [Schrage and Stringer 2003] [Crum et al 2004] [Gupta and Schumann 2004] [Gupta et al 2004] [How 2004] [Waydo and Klavins 2004] [Bateman et al 2005] [De-Lin Luo et al 2005] [Sapronov and Bose 2005] [Soares et al 2005] [Flaherty et al 2006] [Lee et al 2007] [Arthur 2008] [Mou Chen et al 2008] [Chowdhary and Johnson 2009] [Naohiko Kohtake et al 2009] [Aiello et al 2010] [Callow et al 2010] [Cosenzo 2010] [Di Sotto et al 2010] [Du and Liu 2010] [Fregene et al 2010] [Kang et al 2010] [Xargay et al 2010] [Fulton et al 2011] [Shively et al 2011] [Strenzke et al 2011] [Dong and Ai 2012] [Clark et al 2013] [Kong and Li 2013] [Munoz et al 2013] [Alexopoulos et al 2014] [Clark et al 2014] [Paschall and Brady 2014] [Sabatini et al 2014] [Wong et al 2014] [Dong et al 2015] [Evaluating The Use of 2015] [Fu et al 2015] [Hayoun et al 2015] [Humphreys et al 2015] [Ramasamy et al 2015] [Schierman et al 2015] [Schmitt and Schulte 2015] [Schmitt and Schulte 2015] [Uzun et al 2015] [Dennis et al 2016] [Gustavsson 2016] [Hayoun et al 2016] [Humphreys et al 2016] [Ruf and Stütz 2016] [Alexopoulos et al 2017] [Das et al 2017] [Fuller et al 2017] [Hagele and Soffker 2017] [Humphreys et al 2017] [Liu and Ma 2017] [Majd and Troubitsyna 2017] [Skoog 2017] [Verification and Validation of 2017] [Zemzem et al 2017] [Baspinar and Koyuncu 2018] [Gao et al 2018] [Hoke 2018] [Hook et al 2018] [Huang et al 2018] [Ruf and Stütz 2018] [Tremori et al 2018] [Wei and Yang 2018] [Yan et al 2018] [Yeh 2018] [Young et al 2018] [Zhao and Huang 2018] [Alonso da Silva 2019] [Dong 2019] [Donkels and Voigt 2019] [Ingrand 2019] [Kurniawan et al 2019] [Lei et al 2019] [Michelson and Domercant 2019] [Sun et al 2019] [Voigt et al 2019] [Yang et al 2019] [Zhang et al 2019] [Zhou et al 2019] [Andrews et al 2020] [Banas et al 2020] [Chao et al 2020] [Cui et al 2020] [Peterson et al 2020] [Fuller 2020] [Heilemann and Hollatz 2020] [Kallstrom and Heintz 2020] [Kong et al 2020] [Kong et al 2020] [Meyer and Schulte 2020] [Roth et al 2020] [Yang et al 2020] [Yaroshenko et al 2020] [Chou et al 2021] [Costello et al 2021] [Dmitriev et al 2021] [Everett 2021] [Falco and Gilpin 2021] [Giacomossi et al 2021] [Halefom et al 2021] [Hobbs et al 2021] [Hu et al 2021] [Huang et al 2021] [Huo et al 2021] [Jiandong et al 2021] [Li et al 2021] [Nagarajan et al 2021] [Pope et al 2021] [Schwerd and Schulte 2021] [Sun et al 2021] [Tasbas and Aydinli 2021] [Ueba et al 2021] [Wade 2021] [Wang et al 2021] [Wang et al 2021] [Yoo et al 2021] [Yoo et al 2021] [A hierarchical decision-making method 2022] [Blevins et al 2022] [Cappuzzo et al 2022] [Cofer et al 2022] [Drusinsky et al 2022] [Dudek and Schulte 2022] [Fan et al 2022] [Gong et al 2022] [Hammarbäck 2022] [Han et al 2022] [Hong et al 2022] [Hu et al 2022] [Isci and Koyuncu 2022] [Jiang et al 2022] [Jin et al 2022] [Kiam et al 2022] [Kim and Lee 2022] [Kirkendoll 2022] [Kirkendoll 2022] [Kong et al 2022] [Laplante et al 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Malhotra and Ratnoo 2022] [Mao et al 2022] [Meyer and Schulte 2022] [DeVore et al 2022] [Rosenblum et al 2022] [Roth and Schulte 2022] [Roth and Schulte 2022] [Schleiss et al 2022] [Tan et al 2022] [Wang et al 2022] [Xiang and Shao 2022] [Yin et al 2022] [Yoo et al 2022] [Zhang et al 2022] [Zhou et al 2022] [Agent-Based Autonomous System Verification 2023] [Alomar et al 2023] [Bae et al 2023] [Baykal and Baspinar 2023] [Chai et al 2023] [Chen et al 2023] [Costello and Xu 2023] [Dang et al 2023] [Dantas et al 2023] [Dou et al 2023] [Feng et al 2023] [Forrai et al 2023] [Grönqvist and Rantzer 2023] [Hammarbäck et al 2023] [Hu et al 2023] [Jia et al 2023] [Jiang et al 2023] [Kong et al 2023] [Lalitha et al 2023] [Langen et al 2023] [Lee and Na 2023] [Levene and Wooldridge 2023] [Li et al 2023] [Liu et al 2023] [Liu et al 2023] [Liu et al 2023] [Llanes and Coogan 2023] [Musau et al 2023] [Pope et al 2023] [Ravaioli et al 2023] [Saldiran et al 2023] [Scukins et al 2023] [Selmonaj et al 2023] [Sparrow and Henschke 2023] [Taşbaş et al 2023] [Wagner et al 2023] [Wang et al 2023] [Wang et al 2023] [Wang et al 2023] [Xiaoyu et al 2023] [Zhang et al 2023] [Zhang et al 2023] [Zhao et al 2023] [Zheng and Duan 2023] [Zhu et al 2023] [Zhu et al 2023] [Agbeyibor et al 2024] [Alomar et al 2024] [Ancel et al 2024] [Chen et al 2024] [Dantas et al 2024] [Fan et al 2024] [He et al 2024] [Hu et al 2024] [Huang et al 2024] [Jiang et al 2024] [Lee and Park 2024] [Li et al 2024] [Li et al 2024] [Li et al 2024] [Liang et al 2024] [Liang et al 2024] [Maier et al 2024] [Malhotra et al 2024] [McQuinn et al 2024] [Mei et al 2024] [Parjan and Gaines 2024] [Pericon 2024] [Prasetiyo et al 2024] [Roncolini and Quaranta 2024] [Saldiran et al 2024] [Schnitzer et al 2024] [Shetiya et al 2024] [Tan et al 2024] [van Wijk et al 2024] [Wang and Wang 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Xia et al 2024] [Yan et al 2024] [Yang et al 2024] [Zhang et al 2024] [Zhang et al 2024] [Zhang et al 2024] [Zhao et al 2024] [Zheng et al 2024] [Zhou et al 2024] [Zhou et al 2024] [Zhu et al 2024] [Zhu et al 2024] [Abeywickrama et al 2025] [Ahn et al 2025] [Albawaneh et al 2025] [Ali et al 2025] [Buysse et al 2025] [Catak et al 2025] [Chen et al 2025] [Chen et al 2025] [Dunlap et al 2025] [Forrai et al 2025] [Friedrich and Schulte 2025] [Hamilton et al 2025] [Han et al 2025] [He et al 2025] [Hodge and Osborne 2025] [Huber et al 2025] [Huo et al 2025] [Jia et al 2025] [Jiang et al 2025] [Keles et al 2025] [Kiriakidis and Bharadwaj 2025] [Kong et al 2025] [Kuroswiski et al 2025] [Künzel et al 2025] [Lee and Kang 2025] [Lee et al 2025] [Lee et al 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Liu et al 2025] [Lochow et al 2025] [Lu and Chen 2025] [Martin and Esteban 2025] [Paterson et al 2025] [Paul et al 2025] [Pelletier et al 2025] [Pelletier et al 2025] [Roussos et al 2025] [Schlautmann et al 2025] [Selmonaj et al 2025] [Sheeba et al 2025] [Song et al 2025] [Sun et al 2025] [Tan et al 2025] [The People’s Liberation Army’s 2025] [Waheed et al 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Wei et al 2025] [Wu et al 2025] [Wu et al 2025] [Wuwer et al 2025] [Xu et al 2025] [Xu et al 2025] [Yan et al 2025] [Yang et al 2025] [Yang et al 2025] [Yang et al 2025] [Yuan et al 2025] [Zheng et al 2025] [Assifuah and Jacob 2026] [Athanasiadou et al 2026] [Bouchard et al 2026] [Chen et al 2026] [Chen et al 2026] [Daw 2026] [Fu and Yang 2026] [Gozzi and Schulte 2026] [Guo et al 2026] [Guo et al 2026] [Hao et al 2026] [Hu et al 2026] [Huang et al 2026] [Jeong 2026] [Jeong et al 2026] [Khalid et al 2026] [Kim 2026] [Kim and Kim 2026] [Korecki and Hoika 2026] [Lewkowicz 2026] [Li et al 2026] [Liu et al 2026] [Mechouche et al 2026] [Qi and Xie 2026] [Rahman et al 2026] [Salhi et al 2026] [Salhi et al 2026] [Santangelo 2026] [Schosser et al 2026] [Selmonaj et al 2026] [Seto and Bassam 2026] [Treesatayapun 2026] [Tschurtschenthaler and Schulte 2026] [Verification of Autonomous Systems 2026] [Wang et al 2026] [Wang et al 2026] [White and Hanna 2026] [Wickramasuriya et al 2026] [Ye et al 2026] [Zhang et al 2026] [Zhang et al 2026] [Zhang et al 2026] [Şafak et al 2026] [Al-Mahbashi] [Aurandt] [Brat and Jonsson] [Campa et al] [Changyou Liu and Ningquan Luo] [Cukic] [Dhonthi Ramesh Babu] [Ancel et al] [Foughali] [Frontera Sánchez] [Green et al] [Gunsch et al] [Hinchey et al] [Sljivo et al] [Slagel et al] [Dabney et al] [Prinzel et al] [Rajagopal et al] [Pierron and Lahire] [Safety Assurance Objectives for] [Safety Assurance Objectives for] [Safety Assurance Objectives for] [Safety Assurance Objectives for] [Singh] [Stolarik] [Vidot] [Wardziński]

Getting the model in the first place

Where a model comes from. System identification and parameter estimation of aircraft and rotorcraft dynamics from flight and wind-tunnel data, frequency-response methods and input design.

387 records. [Andrew and Polve 1952] [Smith and Triplett 1954] [Maeda 1960] [Marchetti 1968] [Iliff and Powers 1969] [Grove et al 1972] [Steinmetz et al 1972] [Grove and Mayhew 1973] [Mehra and Tyler 1973] [Molusis 1973] [Molusis 1973] [Molusis 1973] [Eulrich and Mesiah 1974] [Mehra et al 1974] [Parameter estimation techniques and 1974] [Ramachandran and Wells 1974] [Rediess 1974] [Schwanz and Wells 1974] [Stepner and Mehra 1974] [Stepner and Sorensen 1974] [Buenz et al 1975] [Driscoll et al 1975] [Gupta and Hall 1975] [Hull and Roger 1975] [Mehra and Eupta 1975] [Ramachandran and Wells 1975] [Athans and Chang 1976] [Burton and Bischoff 1976] [Mabius and Kaufman 1976] [Iliff 1977] [Klein 1977] [Maine 1977] [Mohr and Smith 1977] [Wells and Queijo 1977] [Eulrich et al 1978] [Klein 1978] [Rynaski et al 1978] [Tomaine et al 1978] [Wingrove 1978] [Keskar and Wells 1979] [Stalford 1979] [Wells and Keskar 1979] [Schwanz and Grimes 1980] [Singh and Subramanian 1980] [Cockrell and Doherr 1981] [Duval 1981] [Mark 1981] [Vincent and Franklin 1981] [Wells et al 1981] [Clarke and Roskam 1982] [Iliff and Maine 1982] [Plaetschke et al 1982] [Wells and Klein 1982] [Wells et al 1982] [Anderson et al 1983] [Iliff and Maine 1983] [Klein and Batterson 1983] [Klein 1983] [Lin 1983] [Raisinghani and Adak 1983] [Tischler et al 1983] [Wells and Pailoor 1983] [Sim and Curry 1984] [Tischler et al 1984] [Anderson and Vincent 1985] [Iliff and Maine 1985] [Jategaonkar and Plaetschke 1985] [Mereau and Abu El Ata-Doss 1985] [Mulder 1985] [Tischler et al 1985] [Tischler et al 1985] [Bosworth and West 1986] [Chen and Tischler 1986] [Iliff and Maine 1986] [Maine and Murray 1986] [Tischler et al 1986] [Wang et al 1986] [Iliff 1987] [Parker and Bitmead 1987] [Silhouette and Stengel 1987] [Speyer and Crues 1987] [Tischler 1987] [Mulder 1988] [Plaetschke and Weiss 1988] [Tischler 1988] [Young and Patton 1988] [Kaletka et al 1989] [Klein 1989] [Klein 1989] [Ranaudo et al 1989] [Ringenbach 1989] [Tischler 1989] [Klein 1990] [Tang and Capistran 1990] [Young and Patton 1990] [Preissler and Schaufele 1991] [Stevenson 1991] [Tischler 1991] [Chapman and Yates 1992] [Orme and Gilyard 1992] [Tischler and Cauffman 1992] [Iliff and Shafer 1993] [Kaletka and Fu 1993] [Laban and Masui 1993] [Naihong et al 1993] [Neville and Stephens 1993] [Schrage and Sturisky 1993] [Tang 1993] [Chinag and Youssef 1994] [Jategaonkar and Thielecke 1994] [Napolitano et al 1994] [Stuckey 1994] [Cho et al 1995] [Fletcher 1995] [Garcia-Velo and Walker 1995] [Raisinghani and Kumar 1995] [Raol and Jategaonkar 1995] [Schkolnik et al 1995] [Song et al 1995] [Tischler 1995] [Gates et al 1996] [Hamel and Jategaonkar 1996] [Huang et al 1996] [Ishimoto and Ishimoto 1997] [Masui 1997] [Steck et al 1997] [Bruce and Kellett 1998] [Morelli 1998] [Oelker and Friehmelt 1998] [Ward et al 1998] [Buffington et al 1999] [Chen and Valasek 1999] [Lee and Nagati 1999] [Pachter et al 1999] [Raisinghani et al 1999] [Raol and Girija 1999] [Sarkar et al 1999] [Ghosh and Raisinghani 2000] [Ghosh et al 2000] [Jategaonkar and Thielecke 2000] [Lim et al 2000] [Saraswathi 2000] [Sarkar et al 2000] [Demourant and Ferreres 2001] [Klein and Murphy 2001] [Napolitano et al 2001] [Ananthasayanam et al 2002] [Ghosh and Raisinghani 2002] [Morelli 2002] [Raisinghani and Ghosh 2002] [Rogers 2002] [Hageman et al 2003] [Higashino and Sakurai 2003] [Hur and Valasek 2003] [Lan and Brandon 2003] [Mettler 2003] [Smith et al 2003] [Valasek and Chen 2003] [A study on the 2004] [Babcock and Arena 2004] [Basappa and Jategaonkar 2004] [Jategaonkar et al 2004] [Jategaonkar 2005] [Morelli et al 2005] [Singh et al 2005] [Chowdhary and Jategaonkar 2006] [Francois Veysset 2006] [Frequency-Response Method for System 2006] [Gatto and Lowenberg 2006] [Introduction and Brief History 2006] [Morelli 2006] [Narasimhan and Rengaswamy 2006] [Remple and Tischler 2006] [Seren et al 2006] [Single-Input / Single-Output Frequency-Response 2006] [Yang Shi et al 2006] [Kamali et al 2007] [Nguyen and Krishnakumar 2007] [Suzuki and Sugie 2007] [Aircraft and Rotorcraft System 2008] [Lee and Yoon 2008] [Marwaha et al 2008] [Murphy and Klein 2008] [Sarigul-Klijn et al 2008] [Campbell et al 2009] [Gatto 2009] [Han et al 2009] [Hoburg and Tedrake 2009] [Kutluay et al 2009] [Lombaerts et al 2009] [Peyada and Ghosh 2009] [Sarkar et al 2009] [Woodruff 2009] [Bai 2010] [Chowdhary and Jategaonkar 2010] [Hardier and Bucharles 2010] [Liu and Wu 2010] [Lykins and Keshmiri 2010] [Manchester 2010] [Morelli 2010] [Murphy and Klein 2010] [Taylor et al 2010] [Tran and Lind 2010] [Zivan and Tischler 2010] [Bachelder et al 2011] [Burchett 2011] [McCracken and Jorris 2011] [Murphy and Klein 2011] [Murphy et al 2011] [Sarkar et al 2011] [Silva 2011] [Burchett 2012] [Development of a Continuous 2012] [Frequency-Response Method for System 2012] [Introduction and Brief History 2012] [Londono and Leonhardt 2012] [Rohlf et al 2012] [Single-Input/Single-Output Frequency-Response Identification Theory 2012] [Taylor 2012] [Tischler and Remple 2012] [Özger 2012] [Cassady et al 2013] [Dorobantu et al 2013] [Grauer and Martos 2013] [Hamel 2013] [Lichota and Lasek 2013] [Lichota and Lasek 2013] [Muhammad et al 2013] [Ozger 2013] [Pei and Wall 2013] [Sylvestrov 2013] [Woodrow et al 2013] [Yu et al 2013] [Chase and McDonald 2014] [Kaya and Kutay 2014] [Kuehme et al 2014] [Kumar and Ghosh 2014] [Kumar et al 2014] [Mohamed 2014] [Raab 2014] [Beharie et al 2015] [Buttini et al 2015] [Grauer and Morelli 2015] [Hrishikeshavan et al 2015] [Wang et al 2015] [Wei and Renliang 2015] [Aircraft and Rotorcraft System 2016] [Babar and Baglietto 2016] [Deiler 2016] [Dykes and Mavris 2016] [Ferreres et al 2016] [Fujimoto and Sugie 2016] [Ghosh Roy and Peyada 2016] [Grauer 2016] [Grauer 2016] [Göttlicher et al 2016] [Harris et al 2016] [Lichota 2016] [Lichota et al 2016] [Liu et al 2016] [Pagliuca and Timme 2016] [Pfifer and Danowsky 2016] [Agha et al 2017] [Annergren et al 2017] [Jirgl et al 2017] [Kuitche et al 2017] [Kumar and Ghosh 2017] [Lu et al 2017] [McCrink and Gregory 2017] [Mohamed 2017] [Moszczynski and Grant 2017] [Verma and Peyada 2017] [Yavuztürk et al 2017] [Zhang et al 2017] [Devalla et al 2018] [Fujimoto and Sugie 2018] [Grauer and Boucher 2018] [Klausmeyer 2018] [Kumar and Ghosh 2018] [Kumar and Ghosh 2018] [Kumar and Ghosh 2018] [Morelli and Grauer 2018] [Mu and Chen 2018] [O’Donnell and Mohseni 2018] [Saini and Gopalarathnam 2018] [Tischler 2018] [Verma and Peyada 2018] [Villasenor Rios and Justo Malo Tamayo 2018] [Goswami et al 2019] [Hartman 2019] [Hosseini et al 2019] [Ivler et al 2019] [Larsson 2019] [Leung et al 2019] [Newton 2019] [Perry et al 2019] [Xu et al 2019] [Berrigan et al 2020] [Berrigan et al 2020] [Grauer 2020] [Grauer and Boucher 2020] [Hosseini et al 2020] [Morelli and Grauer 2020] [Nguyen et al 2020] [Regan et al 2020] [Veismann and Gharib 2020] [Wei et al 2020] [Yavuztürk and Topbas 2020] [Burchett 2021] [Morelli 2021] [Fama and Newcamp 2021] [Grauer 2021] [Gresham et al 2021] [Grauer 2021] [Javier et al 2021] [Mohamed and Dongare 2021] [Mohamed and Dongare 2021] [Morelli 2021] [Pang et al 2021] [Quitter et al 2021] [Stachiw et al 2021] [Dias 2022] [Grauer 2022] [Hosseini and Holzapfel 2022] [Nepomuceno et al 2022] [Parsa et al 2022] [Qing et al 2022] [Simmons 2022] [Song et al 2022] [Wang et al 2022] [Aerodynamic Parameter Estimation of 2023] [Berger et al 2023] [Dias 2023] [Ertugrul and Koyuncu 2023] [Morelli and Grauer 2023] [Hui and Chen 2023] [Kumar and Ghosh 2023] [Kumar and Ghosh 2023] [Kuttieri and Sinha 2023] [Lichota 2023] [Lichota 2023] [Makkar et al 2023] [Nguyen and Xiong 2023] [Peyada and Ghosh 2023] [Raol and Singh 2023] [Simmons 2023] [Simmons et al 2023] [Tai et al 2023] [Cacho-Pérez 2024] [Hopwood and Woolsey 2024] [Jacobs et al 2024] [Grauer and Morelli 2024] [Kumar and Ghosh 2024] [Lerro et al 2024] [Luo et al 2024] [Murali et al 2024] [Poy et al 2024] [Roeser and Mönnich 2024] [Hofmann et al 2025] [Hosseini et al 2025] [Huang 2025] [Jain et al 2025] [Jing 2025] [Justin James Matt and Haiyang Chao 2025] [Matt et al 2025] [Simmons et al 2025] [Spencer and He 2025] [Aagren et al 2025] [Emadian and Sajjadi 2026] [Jianhong and Lei 2026] [Raab 2026] [Simmons and Ackerman 2026] [Simmons and Murphy] [Chase] [Demourant and Ferreres] [Gerencser and Hjalmarsson] [Goswami] [Grauer] [Kaye] [Mahloch and Rodriguez] [Mehra and Prasanth] [Nguyen and Xiong] [Phillips] [Seanor] [Smith and Speyer] [van der Linden et al] [Zelenka et al]

Designing the loop

The design discipline around the keystone. Flight control law design, among it fly-by-wire and digital flight control, eigenstructure assignment, quantitative feedback theory, the structured singular value, gain scheduling, reconfigurable and fault-tolerant control, and flight envelope protection.

1,759 records. [Wendt 1948] [Northrop Aircraft Inc Hawthorne Ca 1952] [Hart 1956] [Grossman 1957] [Sjoberg et al 1958] [Henn and Boronow 1959] [Ashkenas and McRUER 1960] [Army Aviation School Fort Rucker Al 1961] [Hofmann and Kezer 1962] [Kinney 1963] [McDonald and Farris 1964] [Sexton 1964] [Horikoshi 1965] [Johnson 1965] [Knuusi and Sage 1965] [Ruggles 1965] [Stalony-Dobrzanski 1965] [Frosch and Vallely 1966] [Horikoshi 1966] [Bosman 1967] [Collette 1967] [Horsnell 1967] [Jarvis 1967] [Krachmalnick et al 1967] [Miller and Emfinger 1967] [Semmelhack and Hoppe 1967] [Burris and Dempster 1968] [Hart 1968] [Hatch 1968] [Jackson and Patch 1968] [Johnson and Weir 1968] [Krachmalnick et al 1968] [Miller 1968] [Robinson 1968] [Sethre 1968] [Burris 1969] [Dempster and Arnold 1969] [Freeman and Teets 1969] [Gabriel and Schreiber 1969] [Rediess and Whitaker 1969] [Bazill and Jenney 1970] [Bumby 1970] [Nardi 1970] [Ramby and Tobie 1970] [Bumby 1971] [Experience with the X-15 1971] [Kisslinger and Wendl 1971] [Smetana 1971] [Smith et al 1971] [Bumby 1972] [Deets and Szalai 1972] [Emfinger and Flannigan 1972] [Jeffrie and Rolston 1972] [Kisslinger and Vetsch 1972] [Mant 1972] [Millard 1972] [Crandall et al 1973] [Cully and Boller 1973] [Kaufman and Berry 1973] [Madden and Desai 1973] [McMaster and Schenk 1973] [Roskam and Henry 1973] [Sklaroff et al 1973] [Vandierendonck 1973] [Campbell 1974] [Cotton 1974] [Hahn 1974] [Healey 1974] [Jarvis 1974] [Kaufman et al 1974] [Konar et al 1974] [Lee 1974] [Marbach 1974] [Mathews 1974] [McGough et al 1974] [Montgomery and Caglayan 1974] [Montgomery and Price 1974] [Painter and Sitterle 1974] [Rossing and Hupp 1974] [Slater 1974] [Campbell and Abramovitz 1975] [Deets 1975] [Description and Flight Test 1975] [Fairbanks and Templeman 1975] [Gran et al 1975] [Hendrick and Hill 1975] [Hutto 1975] [Jarvis 1975] [Johnson 1975] [Kestek 1975] [Klinar et al 1975] [Kuchta 1975] [Livingston 1975] [Lock et al 1975] [McManus and Niven 1975] [Mulcare and Benson 1975] [Porter and Swaim 1975] [Simon and Savage 1975] [Szalai 1975] [Yechout and Oelschlaeger 1975] [Yopp and McDonnell 1975] [Zipperer et al 1975] [Zipperer et al 1975] [Anderson 1976] [Bailey and Folkesson 1976] [Bosch and Kuehl 1976] [Boudreau 1976] [Deets 1976] [Elliott 1976] [Gallagher and Saworotnow 1976] [Gotlieb et al 1976] [Hartmann and Harvey 1976] [Hartmann et al 1976] [Hutto 1976] [Kaufman 1976] [Lee and Konar 1976] [Lock et al 1976] [Malcom and Husband 1976] [McManus and Gonsalves 1976] [Miller 1976] [Mori 1976] [Pociluyko et al 1976] [Powell et al 1976] [Seacord and Vaughn 1976] [Tribuno et al 1976] [Yechout and Oelschlaeger 1976] [Abrams et al 1977] [Alag and Kaufman 1977] [Bosch and Kuehl 1977] [Boudreau 1977] [Brown and Szalai 1977] [Davis et al 1977] [Dobos-Bubno and Hartsook 1977] [Elliott 1977] [Flight control system of 1977] [Gotlieb 1977] [Hartmann et al 1977] [Johnson 1977] [Joslin et al 1977] [Kurzhals and Deloach 1977] [Niven 1977] [Pursel 1977] [Sanfilippo 1977] [Slivinsky 1977] [Stein et al 1977] [Vetsc et al 1977] [Watson and Komechak 1977] [Batra et al 1978] [Berman and Boudreau 1978] [Bosch and Briggs 1978] [Brandeau 1978] [Clifford 1978] [Collinson BSc Eng. 1978] [Demarchi and Haning 1978] [Fault-tolerant software for aircraft 1978] [Feucht et al 1978] [Hogan and Rinde 1978] [Jenney 1978] [Knox and McCarty 1978] [McManus 1978] [Montgomery et al 1978] [Murphy 1978] [Peled and Powell 1978] [Rickard 1978] [Szalai et al 1978] [Vinkler and Wood 1978] [Westermeier 1978] [Woolley 1978] [A multi microprocessor flight 1979] [Berman and Boudreau 1979] [Blair and McCorkle 1979] [Broussard et al 1979] [D’Azzo 1979] [Ferguson and Builta 1979] [Govindaraj et al 1979] [Hartmann and Stein 1979] [Hartmann et al 1979] [Huber and Holdridge 1979] [Mitchell 1979] [Nagy 1979] [Posingies 1979] [Rang et al 1979] [Rice and McCorkle 1979] [Smith and Meyer 1979] [Van Gool and Mooij 1979] [Wehrend 1979] [Brock and Goddman 1980] [Horowitz et al 1980] [Jenney 1980] [Jensen 1980] [Kimball 1980] [Kohnhorst and Magnacca 1980] [Larsen 1980] [Slivinsky and Patumtawapibal 1980] [Stapleford 1980] [Tinling and Cole 1980] [Benson et al 1981] [Burton and Kneeland 1981] [Cox 1981] [De Keyser and van Cauwenberghe 1981] [Deckert 1981] [Ferrell 1981] [Foulkes 1981] [Johnson et al 1981] [Miller 1981] [Noble 1981] [Montgomery 1981] [Rebel 1981] [Smith and Meyer 1981] [Abrams 1982] [Adams and Tiffany 1982] [Bayle 1982] [Cavin and Bhattacharyya 1982] [Chin et al 1982] [Dethomas and Goel 1982] [Fahmy and O’Reilly 1982] [Finelli 1982] [Hindson 1982] [Horowitz 1982] [Jenney et al 1982] [Kafer 1982] [Kempel 1982] [Kineyko 1982] [Leonard 1982] [Lin and Hsu 1982] [Mulcare et al 1982] [Murphy and Haskins 1982] [Rose 1982] [Rynaski 1982] [Smyth and D’Azzo 1982] [Athans 1983] [Back-Up Flight Control System 1983] [Bauschlicher et al 1983] [Brandeau and Decanio 1983] [Chandler and Potts 1983] [Downing 1983] [Jines 1983] [Lambregts 1983] [Larson et al 1983] [Ly 1983] [Montoya et al 1983] [Saito 1983] [Sobel et al 1983] [Stirling 1983] [Berthe et al 1984] [Broussard and Halyo 1984] [Chang 1984] [Gaston et al 1984] [Gaylor 1984] [Hansen 1984] [Harschburger et al 1984] [Holt et al 1984] [Klein 1984] [Motyka et al 1984] [Murphy 1984] [Ohta et al 1984] [Patterson 1984] [Safonov 1984] [Shapiro and Chung 1984] [Smith and Meyer 1984] [Sobel and Shapiro 1984] [Webster et al 1984] [Alag and Duke 1985] [Bradshaw et al 1985] [Fan and Tits 1985] [Herrera-Vaillard et al 1985] [Hilton and Steed 1985] [Lambregts 1985] [Larson and Williston 1985] [Lewis and Ozcaldiran 1985] [Looze et al 1985] [Lyle 1985] [Melvin 1985] [Menon et al 1985] [Mooij 1985] [Murray 1985] [Schmidt and Davidson 1985] [Sobel and Shapiro 1985] [Sobel and Shapiro 1985] [Blight et al 1986] [Doyle 1986] [Fan and Tits 1986] [Fan and Tits 1986] [Gavito and Collins 1986] [Graham 1986] [Grosdidier and Morari 1986] [Heldt 1986] [Herrera-Vaillard et al 1986] [Horowitz and Ioinovici 1986] [Larson 1986] [Loh 1986] [Ly and Ho 1986] [McRuer et al 1986] [Melvin 1986] [Naidu and Price 1986] [Paduano and Downing 1986] [Porter and Manganas 1986] [Powers and Sarrafian 1986] [Prototype Digital Flight Control 1986] [Schmidt 1986] [Sobel and Shapiro 1986] [Sobel et al 1986] [Solomon and Davison 1986] [Speyer et al 1986] [Venhuizen 1986] [Vukobratović and Stojić 1986] [Weeks 1986] [Weinstein et al 1986] [Weiss et al 1986] [Weiss et al 1986] [Weiss and Hsu 1986] [Zafiriou and Morari 1986] [Baer-Riedhart and Landy 1987] [Bakken 1987] [Chin et al 1987] [Cowling 1987] [Dallery 1987] [Dethomas and Pio 1987] [Eppright 1987] [Fredericks et al 1987] [Gavito 1987] [Grübel and Joos 1987] [Handelman 1987] [Handelman 1987] [Hindson 1987] [Jones 1987] [Larson 1987] [Osder 1987] [Perri et al 1987] [Sobel and Shapiro 1987] [Sobel and Shapiro 1987] [Thompson et al 1987] [Weiss and Hsu 1987] [Yaniv and Horowitz 1987] [Yasue et al 1987] [Zheng 1987] [Beaufrere 1988] [Bleeg 1988] [Bonnice and Baker 1988] [Deets et al 1988] [Fahmy and O’Reilly 1988] [Fan and Tits 1988] [Fischer 1988] [Garrard et al 1988] [Handelman and Stengel 1988] [Horowitz 1988] [Jacazio and Borello 1988] [Krause et al 1988] [Lee et al 1988] [Litt 1988] [Mayhew and Gleason 1988] [Morgan 1988] [Mukhopadhyay 1988] [Mulcare et al 1988] [Myers and Walsh 1988] [Nayak and Youssef 1988] [Omlor and Radunz 1988] [Osder 1988] [Packard and Doyle 1988] [Richardson and Kesler 1988] [Siddiqi and Abraham 1988] [Skogestad and Morari 1988] [Smith 1988] [Sobel and Lallman 1988] [Sobel and Lallman 1988] [Synthesis of a reduced 1988] [Uchida et al 1988] [Walter 1988] [William Helton 1988] [Apkarian et al 1989] [Bernstein et al 1989] [Burrows and Patton 1989] [Burrows et al 1989] [Chang et al 1989] [Dailey and Gangsaas 1989] [Fan and Fu 1989] [Farineau 1989] [Freudenberg 1989] [Garrard et al 1989] [Hammond et al 1989] [Han 1989] [Krause 1989] [Manning and Banda 1989] [McRuer et al 1989] [Moerder et al 1989] [Mukhopadhyay 1989] [Nwokah and Thompson 1989] [Paduano and Downing 1989] [Saif 1989] [Smith et al 1989] [Sobel and Lallman 1989] [Subramanian and Subramanian 1989] [Wendel and Schmidt 1989] [Willman 1989] [Bossert et al 1990] [Burrows and Patton 1990] [Chacon and McBride 1990] [Chiang et al 1990] [Dailey 1990] [Enns 1990] [Fischer 1990] [Garg et al 1990] [Garrard and Low 1990] [Ha 1990] [Handelman and Stengel 1990] [Hess 1990] [Horowitz 1990] [Juang et al 1990] [Kehoe et al 1990] [Khraishi and Emami-Naeini 1990] [Klepl 1990] [Latchman and Norris 1990] [Linse 1990] [Linse 1990] [Maybeck and Stevens 1990] [Miminis 1990] [Miyazawa 1990] [Multiloop Flight Control Systems 1990] [Patel and Patton 1990] [Romano and Singh 1990] [Rugh 1990] [Schmidt and Newman 1990] [Smith and Meyer 1990] [Snell et al 1990] [Sobel et al 1990] [Stewart and Shuck 1990] [Thompson and Nwokah 1990] [Thompson and Nwokah 1990] [Tsing 1990] [Urnes et al 1990] [Vincent and Anex 1990] [Analytical framework for gain 1991] [Baker and Farrell 1991] [Balakrishnan 1991] [Burrows and Patton 1991] [Caldwell and Osder 1991] [Chang et al 1991] [Chen et al 1991] [Farsi and Saddique 1991] [Garg and Ouzts 1991] [Ha 1991] [Horowitz 1991] [Hyde and Glover 1991] [Hynes and Clark 1991] [Jayasuriya et al 1991] [Latchman and Norris 1991] [Mao and Zhao 1991] [Maybeck and Stevens 1991] [Nwokah et al 1991] [Patel and Patton 1991] [Perez et al 1991] [Rocket stabilization as a 1991] [Shamma and Athans 1991] [Smith 1991] [Smith et al 1991] [Stengel 1991] [Takahashi 1991] [Thompson and Nwokah 1991] [Troudet et al 1991] [Urnes and Yeager 1991] [Vos et al 1991] [Wei 1991] [Weinmann 1991] [Wendel et al 1991] [White 1991] [Yang 1991] [Yaniv and Chait 1991] [Yaniv and Chait 1991] [Arent and Falatko 1992] [Balakrishnan et al 1992] [Bossert 1992] [Burrows and Patton 1992] [Castelan and Hennet 1992] [Chang et al 1992] [Chou and Biezad 1992] [Control design for robust 1992] [Digirolamo 1992] [Gain scheduling potential hazards 1992] [Hall 1992] [Hess 1992] [Hess and Yousefpor 1992] [Howitt 1992] [Ingle and Celi 1992] [Latchman and Norris 1992] [Liebst 1992] [Low and Garrard 1992] [Manness and Murray-Smith 1992] [Maybeck 1992] [McLean and Aslam-Mir 1992] [Morris 1992] [Nwokah et al 1992] [O’Reilly and Leithead 1992] [Piou and Sobel 1992] [Porter and Borairi 1992] [Prasad and Lipp 1992] [Snell et al 1992] [Sparks and Banda 1992] [Sparks et al 1992] [Steinbuch et al 1992] [The aircraft cockpit from 1992] [Van Der Geest et al 1992] [Vieten 1992] [Wang et al 1992] [Alden 1993] [Bossert 1993] [Burcham et al 1993] [Chiang, R. Y. et al 1993] [Chung et al 1993] [Chung et al 1993] [Eigenstructure assignment by P 1993] [Garg 1993] [Gorder 1993] [Haddad et al 1993] [Hess and Gorder 1993] [Hori et al 1993] [Jayasuriya and Zhao 1993] [Kim et al 1993] [McLean and Aslam-Mir 1993] [Nichols et al 1993] [Nordgres et al 1993] [Packard and Doyle 1993] [Packard and Pandey 1993] [Park and Nagati 1993] [Patel and White 1993] [Patel et al 1993] [Patton et al 1993] [Patton et al 1993] [Shafai et al 1993] [Sparks and Banda 1993] [Stengel 1993] [Takahashi 1993] [The direct inverse nyquist 1993] [Urnes et al 1993] [Adams et al 1994] [Buffington et al 1994] [Burcham and Burken 1994] [Clarke et al 1994] [Digital model-reference flight control 1994] [Favre 1994] [Franklin 1994] [Ghwan-Lu Tseng et al 1994] [Gonsalves and Zacharias 1994] [Güvenç 1994] [Hakvoort et al 1994] [Hayes and Holohan 1994] [Helton 1994] [Hess 1994] [Houpis et al 1994] [Jaehong Park and Rizzoni 1994] [Jang et al 1994] [Johnson et al 1994] [Kubica and Livet 1994] [Kubica and Livet 1994] [Linear quadratic controllers for 1994] [Livet et al 1994] [McLean 1994] [McLean and Aslam-Mir 1994] [McLean and Aslam-Mir 1994] [Modelling of gain and 1994] [Multirate control system design 1994] [Ochi et al 1994] [On sequential stabilization of 1994] [Packard 1994] [Patton and Liu 1994] [Patton et al 1994] [Piou et al 1994] [Rasmussen and Houpis 1994] [Rotstein 1994] [Rynaski 1994] [Sparks et al 1994] [Trosen et al 1994] [Use of optimal integral 1994] [Ward and Ly 1994] [Yang 1994] [Balakrishnan and Biega 1995] [Corrigan et al 1995] [Escobosa 1995] [Hayes and Holohan 1995] [Hess and Henderson 1995] [Hgo and Ly 1995] [Inman and Kress 1995] [Kim 1995] [McLEAN and Aslam-Mir 1995] [Miotto and Paduano 1995] [Newman 1995] [Newman and Buttrill 1995] [Park and Nagati 1995] [Piou and Sobel 1995] [Prudhomme 1995] [Rediess et al 1995] [Singh et al 1995] [Snell and Stout 1995] [Snell and Stout 1995] [Sparks and Bernstein 1995] [Wee 1995] [Amato et al 1996] [Ballance 1996] [Bercovici et al 1996] [Blomenhofer 1996] [Bodson and Pohlchuck 1996] [Burcham and Pappas 1996] [Chou and Biezad 1996] [Chou and Biezad 1996] [Collinson 1996] [Corrigan et al 1996] [Daltan 1996] [Duerksen 1996] [Elgersma et al 1996] [Faleiro and Pratt 1996] [Faleiro and Pratt 1996] [Fonterose and Hall 1996] [Gu¨venc¸ 1996] [Haddad et al 1996] [Halski 1996] [Hess and Snell 1996] [Huang et al 1996] [Leith 1996] [Linear and neural network 1996] [Little 1996] [Liu and Patton 1996] [Miotto and Paduano 1996] [Napolitano and Kincheloe 1996] [Reynolds et al 1996] [Shue et al 1996] [Todd 1996] [Urnes et al 1996] [White 1996] [Bamieh 1997] [Barret and Barret 1997] [Bodson and Groszkiewicz 1997] [Bodson et al 1997] [Breslin and Grimble 1997] [Calise et al 1997] [de la Cruz et al 1997] [Dehaene et al 1997] [Egorov et al 1997] [Faleiro and Pratt 1997] [Faleiro et al 1997] [Fu and Dasgupta 1997] [Fujimori et al 1997] [Gibson et al 1997] [Haddad et al 1997] [Henderson and Hess 1997] [Hess and Snell 1997] [Hou and Pugh 1997] [Hualin Tan and Rugh 1997] [Liu and Patton 1997] [Minyue Fu 1997] [Minyue Fu and Barabanov 1997] [Monaco et al 1997] [Pachter et al 1997] [Rasmussen and Houpis 1997] [Sienel and Bunte 1997] [Smith and Smith 1997] [Snell et al 1997] [Szabolcsi and Gáspár 1997] [Totah and Totah 1997] [Totah 1997] [Triller and Kammer 1997] [Vidal 1997] [Baillie et al 1998] [Bodson and Pohlchuck 1998] [Brinker and Wise 1998] [Calise and Rysdyk 1998] [Colgren 1998] [Fabri 1998] [Fujimori et al 1998] [Hess et al 1998] [Horn et al 1998] [Huzmezan 1998] [Jonckheere and Yu 1998] [Joshi and Kelkar 1998] [Leith 1998] [Liu 1998] [Liu 1998] [Ma 1998] [McLaren 1998] [Moorhouse and Fielding 1998] [Newlin and Smith 1998] [Nonlinear adaptive flight control 1998] [Ohno et al 1998] [Rysdyk and Calise 1998] [Snell 1998] [Snell and Hess 1998] [Sparks and Bernstein 1998] [Steinberg and Page 1998] [Wagner et al 1998] [Walsh 1998] [Wenhua Chen 1998] [Wise and Sedwick 1998] [Wu et al 1998] [Zhao and Jayasuriya 1998] [Akmeliawati and Mareels 1999] [Brinker and Wise 1999] [Buffington 1999] [Burken et al 1999] [Collinson 1999] [Cossar 1999] [Cotting and Burken 1999] [Doh et al 1999] [Drela 1999] [Eberhardt and Ward 1999] [Ellis and Gubbels 1999] [Ferreres and Fromion 1999] [Ford 1999] [Fujimori and Nikiforuk 1999] [Hee-Seob Kim and Youdan Kim 1999] [Hess et al 1999] [Houpis et al 1999] [Huang et al 1999] [Huzmezan and Maciejowski 1999] [Jae Weon Choi and Young Bong Seo 1999] [Krahe 1999] [Lind and Brenner 1999] [Lind 1999] [Liu and Duan 1999] [Magni 1999] [Malekpour and Torres 1999] [Maybeck 1999] [Miyazawa and Motoda 1999] [Ohno et al 1999] [Parallel eigenstructure assignment via 1999] [Postlethwaite 1999] [Shtessel et al 1999] [Steinberg and Page 1999] [Thompson 1999] [Tischler and Tomashofski 1999] [Tits and Balakrishnan 1999] [Tournes and Johnson 1999] [Tsui 1999] [Tsui 1999] [Willis 1999] [Zhu 1999] [Automatic flight control system 2000] [Balakrishnan 2000] [Boeing B-777 Fly-by-Wire Flight 2000] [Boskovic et al 2000] [Brinker and Wise 2000] [Calise 2000] [Certification of Flight Crews 2000] [Dasgupta and Minyue Fu 2000] [de Montalk and Bartley 2000] [Dones et al 2000] [Eigenstructure assignment applied to 2000] [Elliott and Tomayko 2000] [Fielding and Lodge 2000] [Flight Control Using Nonlinear 2000] [Frost et al 2000] [Fujimori et al 2000] [Ground and flight testing 2000] [Hess and McLean 2000] [Ishimoto and Terui 2000] [Liu and Patton 2000] [Magni 2000] [Miyazawa 2000] [Napolitano et al 2000] [Oliva 2000] [Oosterom et al 2000] [Siwakosit et al 2000] [Soloway and Haley 2000] [Spillman 2000] [Workstations for the Integrated 2000] [Wu et al 2000] [Youmin Zhang and Jin Jiang 2000] [Zhu et al 2000] [Zhu et al 2000] [Alexandridis 2001] [Balakrishnan and Esteban 2001] [Bamieh and Giarre 2001] [Bates et al 2001] [Boskovic and Mehra 2001] [Brinker and Wise 2001] [Calise et al 2001] [Chia-Chi Tsui 2001] [Cotting and Burken 2001] [Cotting et al 2001] [Duan et al 2001] [Fantuzzi et al 2001] [Fielding 2001] [Girija et al 2001] [Hajiyevt and Caliskan 2001] [Hayes et al 2001] [Hayes et al 2001] [Katayanagi 2001] [Korba 2001] [Kureemun et al 2001] [Lee and Edgar 2001] [Marcos and Balas 2001] [Miyazawa and Motoda 2001] [Niewoehner and Carter 2001] [Niksefat and Sepehri 2001] [Nwokhah et al 2001] [Ochi and Kanai 2001] [Oliva 2001] [Satoh and Sugimoto 2001] [Siwakosit and Hess 2001] [Smaili and Fokkerweg 2001] [Taha et al 2001] [Tokutake 2001] [Urnes et al 2001] [Ursu et al 2001] [Ward et al 2001] [Werbos 2001] [Yamaguchi et al 2001] [Young 2001] [Blue et al 2002] [Boskovic and Mehra 2002] [Boskovic and Mehra 2002] [Crassidis and Markofski 2002] [Enns and Si 2002] [Hanson et al 2002] [Harman and Liu 2002] [Hess et al 2002] [Hyung et al 2002] [Johnson et al 2002] [Kaloust 2002] [Lavretsky and Misovec 2002] [Mulder et al 2002] [Napolitano 2002] [Oosterom et al 2002] [Shtessel et al 2002] [Sinha and Ananthkrishnan 2002] [Sobel and Joshi 2002] [Sundararajan et al 2002] [Toker 2002] [Voinot et al 2002] [Wells 2002] [Wells 2002] [Wu and Kim 2002] [Wurth et al 2002] [Balas 2003] [Bickel et al 2003] [Chen and Zhou 2003] [Collinson 2003] [Czyba and Blachuta 2003] [Davidson et al 2003] [Design of Feedback Control-Eigenstructure 2003] [Enns 2003] [Fujimori et al 2003] [Gundy-Burlet 2003] [Halikias et al 2003] [Hess and Wells 2003] [Kim et al 2003] [Klyde et al 2003] [Mehra 2003] [Miotto and LePome 2003] [Moon and Kim 2003] [Reconfigurable Flight Control Law 2003] [Sinha et al 2003] [Tomczyk 2003] [Walker 2003] [Belkharraz and Sobel 2004] [Boczar and Hull 2004] [Clarke and Griffin 2004] [Fung et al 2004] [Gadient and Weltz 2004] [Hajiyev and Caliskan 2004] [Hess et al 2004] [Ho Chul Lee and Jae Weon Choi 2004] [Jacklin et al 2004] [Juliana et al 2004] [Kemin Zhou et al 2004] [King et al 2004] [Liu and Brandel 2004] [Mueller et al 2004] [Nonlinear Discrete-Time Reconfigurable Flight 2004] [Puyou et al 2004] [Reichel 2004] [Safety and efficiency for 2004] [Satoh and Sugimoto 2004] [Shin and Kim 2004] [Shore and Bodson 2004] [Song and Gupta 2004] [Stachowiak and Bosworth 2004] [Steer 2004] [Williams 2004] [Wu et al 2004] [Yanguo et al 2004] [Avanzini and Galeani 2005] [Aykan et al 2005] [Belkharraz and Sobel 2005] [Boskovic et al 2005] [Burken 2005] [Chang et al 2005] [Clement et al 2005] [Cotting and Cox 2005] [Cox and Cotting 2005] [Esna Ashari * et al 2005] [Ferrari and Jensenius 2005] [Fujimori et al 2005] [Garcia-Sanz et al 2005] [Garrec and Kubica 2005] [Gruszecki 2005] [Hickey et al 2005] [Joshi 2005] [Jung et al 2005] [Kale and Chipperfield 2005] [Labibi 2005] [Lam and Barkana 2005] [Liu et al 2005] [Lu et al 2005] [McGeoch et al 2005] [Moon and Kim 2005] [Mulder et al 2005] [Sadovnychiy et al 2005] [Shi et al 2005] [Shore and Bodson 2005] [Williams-Hayes 2005] [Wu et al 2005] [Wu et al 2005] [Alsuwaidan and Crassidis 2006] [Bassett et al 2006] [Baños 2006] [Biannic et al 2006] [Bomben et al 2006] [Boskovic et al 2006] [Bosworth 2006] [Bruyere et al 2006] [Burken et al 2006] [Calia et al 2006] [Cervia et al 2006] [Chen and Speyer 2006] [Dong-Ho Shin and Youdan Kim 2006] [Ducard and Geering 2006] [Fan et al 2006] [Gadewadikar and Lewis 2006] [Guosheng et al 2006] [Holzapfel et al 2006] [Jaimoukha et al 2006] [John J. Burken 2006] [Jun Wu et al 2006] [Kampen et al 2006] [Karpenko and Sepehri 2006] [Kong and Chen 2006] [Kopecki and Dolega 2006] [Kopecki and Rzucidlo 2006] [Liu and Tao 2006] [Liu et al 2006] [Liu et al 2006] [Malaek et al 2006] [Menon et al 2006] [Nelson and Pachter 2006] [Oosterom and Babuška 2006] [Page et al 2006] [Pashilkar et al 2006] [Patel et al 2006] [Perhinschi et al 2006] [Qian Zheng and Fen Wu 2006] [Queinnec et al 2006] [Rieber and Allgöwer 2006] [Rzucidło 2006] [Sarigul-Klijn and Huber 2006] [Satoh and Sugimoto 2006] [Shin et al 2006] [Sun et al 2006] [Wagner and Valasek 2006] [Wang et al 2006] [Yonghua and Jun 2006] [Yu 2006] [Zou and Pagilla 2006] [Ahmad et al 2007] [Bauer et al 2007] [Boskovic et al 2007] [Boskovic et al 2007] [Bosworth and Williams-Hayes 2007] [Bosworth 2007] [Bosworth 2007] [Chandramohan et al 2007] [Development of a Reconfigurable 2007] [Fan et al 2007] [Hiramoto 2007] [Jang et al 2007] [Jung et al 2007] [Karagiannis and Astolfi 2007] [Klenke et al 2007] [Lin and Liu 2007] [Lovera and Mercere 2007] [Muse et al 2007] [Natesan and Bhat 2007] [Nguyen and Krishnakumar 2007] [Nieto-Wire and Sobel 2007] [Orrego and Mundy 2007] [Patel et al 2007] [Pei et al 2007] [Schumann and Liu 2007] [Soares 2007] [Soares 2007] [Wagner and Valasek 2007] [Zhi Chaoyou et al 2007] [Zhou et al 2007] [Ali 2008] [Besselmann et al 2008] [Bosworth 2008] [Chowdhary and Johnson 2008] [Dlapa and Prokop 2008] [Dołęga and Rogalski 2008] [Hall et al 2008] [Hess and Cama 2008] [Hess and Cama 2008] [Jacklin 2008] [Jang et al 2008] [Johnson et al 2008] [Kaneshige and Burken 2008] [Knaust et al 2008] [Lee et al 2008] [Li Peng et al 2008] [Lustosa and e Souza 2008] [Mattei and Scordamaglia 2008] [Motter 2008] [Murch 2008] [Prasanth et al 2008] [Rastgaar Aagaah et al 2008] [Ratliff and Pagilla 2008] [Schierman et al 2008] [Schulein et al 2008] [Song 2008] [Sun et al 2008] [Suresh and Kannan 2008] [Vartio et al 2008] [Wie et al 2008] [Xili et al 2008] [Zhaoquan Cai and Guosheng Wang 2008] [Antoinette and Ferreres 2009] [Atesoglu and Özgören 2009] [Bily and Mahout 2009] [Bosworth and Williams-Hayes 2009] [Brown 2009] [Brown 2009] [Burken et al 2009] [Chen 2009] [Chudy and Rzucidlo 2009] [Díaz-Mendoza and Budman 2009] [Ikonen 2009] [Jin et al 2009] [Kahveci and Ioannou 2009] [Karpenko and Sepehri 2009] [Kianfar and Wik 2009] [Kondo and Ochi 2009] [Larson et al 2009] [Lee 2009] [LeFevre and Jha 2009] [Liu et al 2009] [Menon et al 2009] [Mulder et al 2009] [Muse and Calise 2009] [Nieto-Wire and Sobel 2009] [Packard et al 2009] [Pomfret and Clarke 2009] [Rastgaar et al 2009] [Reconfigurable Guidance System 2009] [Rong Xie et al 2009] [Schumann et al 2009] [Sijun Ye et al 2009] [Simulation of Flight Control 2009] [Sonneveldt et al 2009] [Stahl et al 2009] [Stepanyan et al 2009] [Sun et al 2009] [Tanaka and Langbort 2009] [Verification of Flight Control 2009] [Wittmer 2009] [Xin Wang 2009] [Yang and Corban 2009] [Zaal et al 2009] [Zirui Yu et al 2009] [Zugaj and Narkiewicz 2009] [Avanzini and Minisci 2010] [Blanchini and Miani 2010] [Bosworth and Williams-Hayes 2010] [Burken et al 2010] [Burken et al 2010] [Burnett et al 2010] [Chakravarthy et al 2010] [Chen et al 2010] [Chevarria et al 2010] [Chowdhary and Johnson 2010] [Digital Fly-by-Wire System 2010] [Dlapa and Prokop 2010] [Falkena et al 2010] [Fielding 2010] [Gregory et al 2010] [Ishihara et al 2010] [Jang et al 2010] [Kim and Kim 2010] [Krüger et al 2010] [Liao et al 2010] [Lombaerts et al 2010] [Luria et al 2010] [Mahulkar 2010] [Meng Zhang et al 2010] [Nguyen and Jacklin 2010] [Phillips et al 2010] [Popov et al 2010] [Song et al 2010] [Tiwari 2010] [Wang et al 2010] [Xargay et al 2010] [Zhao Wei Ping et al 2010] [Zhong et al 2010] [Alwi et al 2011] [Ameho and Prempain 2011] [Brat 2011] [Burken et al 2011] [Chen et al 2011] [Collinson 2011] [Duan 2011] [Eigenstructure assignment by output 2011] [Eigenstructure assignment characterisation 2011] [Fan et al 2011] [Flight control system design 2011] [Fresconi 2011] [Fujimori 2011] [Gayaka and Bin Yao 2011] [Gregory et al 2011] [Guo et al 2011] [Hajiyev 2011] [Happawana 2011] [Hongxi Yang and Qingbo Geng 2011] [Jan and Lin 2011] [Jang et al 2011] [Jingping et al 2011] [Iain and Jones 2011] [Khan et al 2011] [Kobayashi and Takahashi 2011] [Kouhi and Bajcinca 2011] [Kouhi and Bajcinca 2011] [Krasnova and Mysik 2011] [Lombaerts and Looye 2011] [Lombaerts et al 2011] [Looye 2011] [Maria-Agneta and Stef 2011] [Masubuchi and Kurata 2011] [Nguyen 2011] [Nieto-Wire and Sobel 2011] [Perez-Pinal et al 2011] [Qu et al 2011] [Richter 2011] [Robust eigenstructure assignment 2011] [Sadati et al 2011] [Saussié et al 2011] [Sonneveldt et al 2011] [Taajwar and Faruque 2011] [Tanaka and Langbort 2011] [Tang et al 2011] [Xiao-hui and Hong-tao 2011] [Xiaoxiong et al 2011] [Xin-li et al 2011] [Zhang et al 2011] [Abdelaziz 2012] [Alazard 2012] [Alwi and Edwards 2012] [Bai et al 2012] [Che et al 2012] [Chen and Shin 2012] [Chudy et al 2012] [Marilena 2012] [Deng et al 2012] [Fan et al 2012] [Hall et al 2012] [Hall et al 2012] [He et al 2012] [Hess 2012] [Joos and Pfife 2012] [Kazak et al 2012] [Khosravani 2012] [Lam et al 2012] [Li and Liu 2012] [Liu 2012] [Ma et al 2012] [Mondal et al 2012] [Qian and Zhai 2012] [Qian Zhengxiang et al 2012] [Rafi et al 2012] [Schutte et al 2012] [Shweyk et al 2012] [Siqueira et al 2012] [Smaili et al 2012] [Stich 2012] [Tancredi and Corraro 2012] [Tran and Newman 2012] [Wang and Wang 2012] [Wang et al 2012] [Wang et al 2012] [Xie 2012] [Xing and Yu 2012] [Xu et al 2012] [Yin et al 2012] [Zhang Jingsha et al 2012] [Zhao Yan et al 2012] [Zhivov and Poedinok 2012] [Ansell et al 2013] [Bernhammer et al 2013] [Bottasso and Montinari 2013] [Brodsky and Luby 2013] [Caliskan and Hajiyev 2013] [Chudy et al 2013] [Engelbrecht et al 2013] [Franze et al 2013] [Fuzzy Gain Scheduling Control 2013] [Galaguz 2013] [He et al 2013] [Heise et al 2013] [Heller et al 2013] [Jun and Ping 2013] [Kang et al 2013] [Khrabrov and Sidoryuk 2013] [Komnatska 2013] [Kucera and Hromčík 2013] [Kufoalor and Johansen 2013] [Lombaerts and Looye 2013] [Lv et al 2013] [Nasir and Kuntjoro 2013] [Nayebpanah et al 2013] [Nelson and Celi 2013] [Nieto-Wire and Sobel 2013] [Optimized Eigenstructure Assignment 2013] [Prathap et al 2013] [Probst et al 2013] [Safety Analysis Flight Control 2013] [Sato 2013] [Siqueira et al 2013] [Tancredi et al 2013] [Thornberg 2013] [Vahedi et al 2013] [Xia et al 2013] [Abdulhamitbilal 2014] [Al Shibli 2014] [Alexis et al 2014] [Almutairi and Aouf 2014] [Alwi and Edwards 2014] [Braun et al 2014] [Brigido-Gonzalez and Rodriguez-Cortes 2014] [Chong and Chuntao 2014] [Douglas 2014] [Ghodbane et al 2014] [Hess and Mallory 2014] [Hu et al 2014] [Iordanov and Halton 2014] [Jung et al 2014] [Kim et al 2014] [Kong et al 2014] [Lathasree et al 2014] [Li et al 2014] [Li et al 2014] [Liu et al 2014] [Lungu and Lungu 2014] [Merheb et al 2014] [Mohammadloo et al 2014] [Mornacchi and Vignolo 2014] [Panza and Lovera 2014] [Sato 2014] [Simon 2014] [Strubel and Konigorski 2014] [Taylor and Irwin 2014] [Tingting and Aijun 2014] [VanZwieten et al 2014] [Wu et al 2014] [Xie Ling 2014] [Yaici and Hariche 2014] [Zhong and Mora-Camino 2014] [Al-Jiboory et al 2015] [Alwi et al 2015] [Atman and Bambang 2015] [Bazhenov and Lysenkova 2015] [Bocola et al 2015] [Caudle et al 2015] [Chitra M V et al 2015] [Choi et al 2015] [CNC machining and machinery 2015] [Flight Control Design 2015] [Garcia-Sanz 2015] [Gursoy and Yavrucuk 2015] [Hatori and Uchiyama 2015] [Hernandez-Garcia and Rodriguez-Cortes 2015] [Juhasz et al 2015] [Ke et al 2015] [Liu et al 2015] [Ntogramatzidis et al 2015] [Oosedo et al 2015] [Ossmann 2015] [Packard et al 2015] [Piga 2015] [Purohit and Nataraj 2015] [Qian et al 2015] [Roos and Biannic 2015] [Solomon Raj and Kumar 2015] [Takarics and Seiler 2015] [Totoki et al 2015] [Woodbury and Valasek 2015] [Zhong et al 2015] [Al-Jiboory and Zhu 2016] [Almutairi and Aouf 2016] [Argyle and Beard 2016] [Chen et al 2016] [Dlamini and Jones 2016] [Dong Cao et al 2016] [Hajiyev 2016] [Hellmundt et al 2016] [Hušek and Narenathreyas 2016] [Ivler et al 2016] [Kuvshinov 2016] [Kuvshinov 2016] [Liu et al 2016] [Liyan Wen et al 2016] [Lu and Turkoglu 2016] [Ma et al 2016] [Mhenni et al 2016] [Ming-Chao and Ju 2016] [Sato 2016] [Schmidt 2016] [Sedghizadeh and Beheshti 2016] [Shan and Hou 2016] [Simplício et al 2016] [Sobel and Reynolds 2016] [Sun et al 2016] [Tameh et al 2016] [Totoki et al 2016] [Wang Fawei 2016] [Woodbury and Valasek 2016] [Xu and Wang 2016] [Xue et al 2016] [Yan et al 2016] [Yu et al 2016] [Yu et al 2016] [Ahmed∗ and Iqbal∗ 2017] [Ahn et al 2017] [Argha et al 2017] [Bartley 2017] [Berra et al 2017] [Conceptual and Preliminary Design 2017] [Dong and Zhou 2017] [Duan 2017] [Fan et al 2017] [Fu et al 2017] [Gain Scheduling/Switching Control Solutions 2017] [Hamel 2017] [Krishnamurthy and Luckner 2017] [Lhachemi et al 2017] [Li et al 2017] [Lu et al 2017] [Noriega et al 2017] [Quantitative Design Requirements for 2017] [Rotondo 2017] [Schreiter et al 2017] [Simulation Requirements for Flight 2017] [Sun et al 2017] [Terrell and Zein-Sabatto 2017] [Tunik and Nadsadna 2017] [Wang and Chen 2017] [Wang et al 2017] [Yu et al 2017] [Yue et al 2017] [Aydemir and Zengin 2018] [Bai 2018] [Beh et al 2018] [Blight et al 2018] [Boeing B-777 Fly-By-Wire Flight 2018] [Cassaro et al 2018] [Chen et al 2018] [Dhadekar and Talole 2018] [Eigenstructure Assignment 2018] [Eigenstructure Assignment Using Dynamic 2018] [Favre 2018] [Franklin 2018] [Fu et al 2018] [Gossmann et al 2018] [Grauer 2018] [Harris 2018] [Hess and Peng 2018] [Houpis et al 2018] [Ijaz et al 2018] [Ju et al 2018] [Kai et al 2018] [Lampl and Hornung 2018] [Liu et al 2018] [Mammadov and Hajiyev 2018] [Nguyen 2018] [Optimization Design and Exploration 2018] [Quan et al 2018] [Quantitative Feedback Theory QFT 2018] [Ren et al 2018] [Rosario-Gabriel and Cortes 2018] [Rotondo 2018] [Rao et al 2018] [Sato 2018] [Sato 2018] [Shanks et al 2018] [Shmul et al 2018] [Song et al 2018] [Stephan and Fichter 2018] [Suraj Nandiganahalli et al 2018] [Tao et al 2018] [Thapa Magar et al 2018] [The Structured Singular Value 2018] [Tonon and Belluati 2018] [Weiser et al 2018] [Yang et al 2018] [Yuxing et al 2018] [Çoban and Oktay 2018] [Abdelkrim et al 2019] [Ahmed et al 2019] [Canin 2019] [Czyba and Stajer 2019] [Duan 2019] [Fadel et al 2019] [Hutchin 2019] [Ijaz et al 2019] [Jebakumar et al 2019] [Krawczyk et al 2019] [Krawczyk et al 2019] [Lathasree et al 2019] [Lavretsky 2019] [Liu et al 2019] [Rojo-Rodriguez et al 2019] [Tao et al 2019] [Uzun et al 2019] [Varriale et al 2019] [Venkataraman and Seiler 2019] [Wang and Yang 2019] [Yao and Wu 2019] [Yuksek et al 2019] [Zhang and Meng 2019] [Cao et al 2020] [Du and Zhang 2020] [Ergocmen and Yavrucuk 2020] [Giusti Degaspare and Kienitz 2020] [Islam et al 2020] [Kalyagin et al 2020] [Kim et al 2020] [Liu et al 2020] [Sharma and Pratap 2020] [Stanford 2020] [Theis et al 2020] [Vile et al 2020] [Vile et al 2020] [Wang et al 2020] [Wang et al 2020] [Xue and Yao 2020] [Yin et al 2020] [Campos et al 2021] [Chakraborty and Mishra 2021] [Deb et al 2021] [Dhadekar et al 2021] [Dlapa 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Gao et al 2021] [Garcia-Sanz 2021] [Haiping et al 2021] [Köthe and Luckner 2021] [Lahey 2021] [Lee and Van Kampen 2021] [Liu 2021] [Lu and Martos 2021] [Matthews and Yi 2021] [Packard et al 2021] [Padula et al 2021] [Pal and Bera 2021] [Qiao and Guo 2021] [Rongbo et al 2021] [Shi et al 2021] [Tai et al 2021] [Test Techniques for Flight 2021] [Truong et al 2021] [Ullah et al 2021] [Wulff et al 2021] [Yang and Morales 2021] [Yu et al 2021] [Ziaei et al 2021] [Amato et al 2022] [Application Analysis on Fly-by-Wire 2022] [Chenglin et al 2022] [Deb et al 2022] [Flight Control Systems 2022] [Asper and Simmons 2022] [Gokceaslan and Albostan 2022] [Munasinghe 2022] [Qian et al 2022] [Qian et al 2022] [Research and Design of 2022] [Scherer et al 2022] [Shen et al 2022] [Shen et al 2022] [Terekhov 2022] [Ullah et al 2022] [Zhou et al 2022] [Altunkaya and Ozkol 2023] [Celi et al 2023] [Comer and Chakraborty 2023] [Dias et al 2023] [Feng et al 2023] [Horpatzká and Hlinka 2023] [Luo 2023] [Osa et al 2023] [P.V and Laxman 2023] [Patterson et al 2023] [Pendem 2023] [q 2023] [Rabiei Beheshti et al 2023] [Raghavendra 2023] [Rawikara et al 2023] [Shi and Ma 2023] [Stephan et al 2023] [Stojanovic 2023] [Uzun and Oktay 2023] [Xingjun 2023] [Yuksel 2023] [Comer et al 2024] [Dlapa 2024] [Dlapa 2024] [Gonzalez and Sala 2024] [Guo et al 2024] [Kai 2024] [Kelly et al 2024] [Kim and Kim 2024] [Lavretsky and Wise 2024] [Liu et al 2024] [Liu et al 2024] [Lu 2024] [Mitiku et al 2024] [Moalemi and Forbes 2024] [Ren et al 2024] [Rhein et al 2024] [Sheng 2024] [Surmann and Myschik 2024] [Tırman et al 2024] [Uzun 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wang et al 2024] [Wechner et al 2024] [Weiser et al 2024] [Xu et al 2024] [Yu 2024] [Yu 2024] [Yu and Wang 2024] [Zhang et al 2024] [Akaryildiz et al 2025] [Autenrieb 2025] [Bao et al 2025] [Bender et al 2025] [Büyükekiz and Ergezer 2025] [Chaves Barbosa and Silvestre 2025] [Comer et al 2025] [Djebrani 2025] [Dlapa 2025] [Grauer 2025] [Hu et al 2025] [Jiaju et al 2025] [Li et al 2025] [Mailhot et al 2025] [Maynard et al 2025] [Ming et al 2025] [Ni and Yang 2025] [Ozcan et al 2025] [Rashad et al 2025] [Shen and Chen 2025] [Shubert and Sizoo 2025] [Song et al 2025] [Tang et al 2025] [Tian et al 2025] [Wang and Wu 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Ye et al 2025] [Yu and Li 2025] [Yuan et al 2025] [Zhang et al 2025] [Zhang et al 2025] [Zhao 2025] [Zhao et al 2025] [Zhou et al 2025] [Zhou et al 2025] [Zhu et al 2025] [Axten and Johnson 2026] [Burton et al 2026] [Efimov and Zolghadri 2026] [Gavra et al 2026] [Hübener and Luckner 2026] [Li et al 2026] [Linear Quadratic Flight Control 2026] [Linear Quadratic Regulator 2026] [Liu and Xu 2026] [Pasupuleti 2026] [Rakesh and Satyanarayana 2026] [Shubert et al 2026] [Wang et al 2026] [Zhang 2026] [Zhao et al 2026] [Zhou 2026] [Zhou et al 2026] [Adams et al] [Aerospace - Flight Control] [Aerospace - Passive Side] [Aerospace - Vehicle Management] [Aerospace Fluid Power Materials] [Aerospace Fly-by-Light Actuation Systems] [Aircraft Flight Control Actuation] [Aircraft Flight Control Systems] [Alwi and Edwards] [Amato et al] [An] [Application of dynamic flight] [Arnold] [Ashari et al] [Ashari et al] [Ballouz and Chang] [Barnard] [Barron et al] [Bates and Postlethwaite] [Becus and Sonmez] [Belcastro] [Belcastro and Fischl] [Belkharraz and Sobel] [Bercovici et al] [Bergsten et al] [Bicchi] [Bodson and Groszkiewicz] [Boskovic and Mehra] [Boskovic and Mehra] [Boskovic and Mehra] [Boskovic and Mehra] [Boskovic et al] [Boskovic et al] [Bossert et al] [Bottura and Serra] [Bouadi] [Braatz] [Calise] [Chait] [Chandler] [Chen and Zhou] [Cheng Yi et al] [Chi-Yuan Chiang and Youssef] [Forte et al] [Forte et al] [Chu et al] [Clough] [Clough et al] [Copeland and Rattan] [das Chagas Mota and Bhaya] [Demmel] [Description of Actuation Systems] [Development Process - Aerospace] [Dong Wenhan et al] [Ekdal] [El-Zolaidi and Jaimoukha] [Elgersma et al] [Enns and Si] [Farrell et al] [Fen Wu and Ke Dong] [Flight control system for] [Flight Critical Control Valves] [Flight Envelope Awareness/Protection] [Godo] [Griffin] [Guang-Hong Yang and Kai-Yew Lum] [Guang-Hong Yang and Kai-Yew Lum] [Gungah et al] [Guosheng Wang and Guangren Duan] [Gururajan] [Haddad et al] [Haddad et al] [Halton and Hayes] [Hammett et al] [Hann-Shing Ju et al] [Harefors and Bates] [Hayes et al] [Hei Ka Tam and Lam] [Helmersson] [Hiraoka et al] [Horowitz and Baños] [Howell] [Integrated Flight Instruments and] [Integrated Rudder and Brake] [Jae Weon Choi et al] [Jafarov and Tasaltm] [Jianjun Shi et al] [Jiurn-Ming Lin et al] [Joos and Finsterwalder] [Kale and Chipperfield] [Kale and Chipperfield] [Karlsson] [Kogler] [Kureemun and Bates] [La Civita et al] [Langer et al] [Lee] [Leith and Leithead] [Li] [Li] [Li and Chang] [Lim] [Lin] [Liu] [Low and Garrard] [Lui and Patton] [Lustosa] [Maia and Resende] [Mammarella] [Martin and Kramer] [McCormack and Gleason] [Megna and Szalai] [Methodology for Investigation of] [Minyue Fu and Barabanov] [Myoung Soo Park et al] [Nwokah] [Nwokah et al] [Oosterom and Babuska] [Osa et al] [Packard and Kantner] [Packard and Zhou] [Packard et al] [Pandya] [Patel et al] [Pei Ying et al] [Piou and Sobel] [Piou et al] [Piou et al] [Porter and Mohamed] [Primary Flight Control Hydraulic] [Pyburn and Owens] [Rasmussen and Alleyne] [Reconfigurable Control] [Reynolds et al] [Robinson] [Rogers et al] [Rotondo] [Roussel] [Sadien] [Sheldon and Rasmussen] [Shimomura] [Shu-Fan Wu et al] [Smith] [Sobel and Yu] [Sparks and Bernstein] [Sparks and Bernstein] [Sparks and Bernstein] [Sparks et al] [Ivanco et al] [Tian] [Todd] [Todd and Yount] [Todd et al] [Toker] [Validation and Verification Process] [Vehicle Management Systems] [Walker and Postlthewaite] [Wang et al] [Wilson and Yedavalli] [Wong] [Wu and Tijian Chen] [Yao Yiping et al] [Yongdong Zhao and Jayasuriya] [Zhong]

The cockpit, which is this aeroplane’s own documented work

The displays the aeroplane itself developed. Head-up and helmet-mounted displays, their symbology, synthetic vision and cockpit automation.

369 records. [Abramovitz et al 1952] [Nicklas 1958] [Bell Aerospace Co Buffalo Ny 1959] [Kelley et al 1965] [Ray 1969] [Harris et al 1970] [Fitzgerald 1971] [Head-up display for pilots 1971] [Hughes et al 1973] [Close and Graube 1974] [Cockpit Displays 1975] [Dwyer and Palmer 1975] [Hershberger and Guerin 1975] [Barnette 1976] [Tapia and Intano 1976] [Phaneuf and Obrien 1977] [Au et al 1978] [Guercio and Haines 1978] [Hare 1978] [Hemingway et al 1979] [Lees et al 1979] [Lewis 1979] [Haines et al 1980] [Lowrie 1980] [Wright 1980] [Bray and Scott 1981] [Burke and Ferris 1981] [Ernstoff 1981] [Head-Up Display 1981] [Leitner and Haines 1981] [Aiken 1982] [Mulley 1982] [New Fighter Cockpit Display 1982] [Smith 1982] [Boucek et al 1983] [Landis et al 1983] [Leuthauser 1983] [List 1983] [Montoya et al 1983] [Bergeron 1984] [Wiener 1984] [Hinton and Shaughnessy 1984] [Landis and Aiken 1984] [Landis et al 1984] [Remington and Williams 1984] [Weintraub et al 1984] [and head-up display 1985] [Lambert et al 1985] [UK and US cooperation 1985] [Weintraub et al 1985] [Mann 1987] [Newman 1987] [Newman 1987] [Zenyuh et al 1987] [Gunther and Hegg 1988] [Haworth et al 1988] [Hess 1988] [Katayama et al 1988] [Varner et al 1988] [Wiener 1988] [Wood and Hayford 1988] [Arbak 1989] [Droessler and Rotier 1989] [Hardyman and Smith 1989] [Haworth and Bucher 1989] [Haworth et al 1989] [Kruk and Runnings 1989] [Lohmann and Weisz 1989] [Moffitt 1989] [Robinson et al 1989] [Rotier 1989] [Schmidt 1989] [Thomas et al 1989] [Thomas et al 1989] [Bitton and Evans 1990] [Droessler 1990] [Iwasa and Davis 1990] [Jones 1990] [Landau 1990] [Yenni 1990] [Elia 1991] [Sojourner and Antin 1991] [Swenson et al 1991] [Benedict and Gunderman 1992] [Bull 1992] [Dorr et al 1992] [Haworth and Seery 1992] [Haworth and Seery 1992] [Haworth and Seery 1992] [Nelson and Cox 1992] [Swenson et al 1992] [Tharp et al 1992] [Wanke and Hansman 1992] [Whitcraft 1992] [Bartlett 1993] [Cameron 1993] [Geiselman and Osgood 1993] [Geiselman et al 1993] [Haidn and Odendahl 1993] [Haworth and Stephens 1993] [McAnulty et al 1993] [Sanford et al 1993] [Bailey 1994] [Bailey 1994] [Balzarotti et al 1994] [Boehmer 1994] [Cameron 1994] [Cameron and Steward 1994] [Coppenbarger 1994] [Dorr et al 1994] [Garman and Trang 1994] [Geiselman and Osgood 1994] [Gilboa 1994] [Hindson et al 1994] [Klymenko et al 1994] [Lahaszow 1994] [Lakaszow 1994] [Long and Wickens 1994] [Marmolejo 1994] [Marshall 1994] [Newman and Haworth 1994] [Post 1994] [Rate et al 1994] [Rodchenko et al 1994] [Rogers 1994] [Rogers and Hamilton 1994] [Sarter and Woods 1994] [Storey et al 1994] [Swenson et al 1994] [Whillock et al 1994] [Wickens and Long 1994] [Wiley and Brown 1994] [Adam 1995] [Bailey et al 1995] [Brandtberg 1995] [Cooper et al 1995] [DeVilbiss and Sipes 1995] [Dudfield et al 1995] [Geiselman and Osgood 1995] [Geiselman and Osgood 1995] [Gillow and Southam 1995] [Hardiman and Dudfield 1995] [Haworth et al 1995] [Jacobsen et al 1995] [Martin et al 1995] [Nelson et al 1995] [Newman et al 1995] [Newman 1995] [Overland and Mocker 1995] [Pongratz 1995] [Sachs and Moeller 1995] [Davy et al 1996] [Geiselman and Tsou 1996] [Martin et al 1996] [Meador et al 1996] [Sachs and Dobler 1996] [Ververs and Wickens 1996] [Wisely 1996] [Bennett and Bennett 1997] [Craig et al 1997] [Drewery et al 1997] [Martin-Emerson and Wickens 1997] [Newman and Greeley 1997] [Ward et al 1997] [Belt et al 1998] [Boestad et al 1998] [Ferrin 1998] [Foote 1998] [Geiselman et al 1998] [Gross et al 1998] [Jennings et al 1998] [Kranz 1998] [Rash et al 1998] [Rogers and Asbury 1998] [Roumes et al 1998] [Ververs and Wickens 1998] [Waldelof et al 1998] [Wisely and Bartlett 1998] [Geiselman 1999] [Geiselman 1999] [Geiselman and Post 1999] [Iannacci and Mayo 1999] [Jennings et al 1999] [Johnson et al 1999] [Knowles 1999] [Mayer et al 1999] [Post et al 1999] [Robbins 1999] [Snow et al 1999] [Armstrong et al 2000] [Boehm et al 2000] [Carter and Cameron 2000] [DeMaio and Rutkowski 2000] [Geiselman et al 2000] [Mehler 2000] [Mulholland 2000] [Newman et al 2000] [Provost et al 2000] [Sharkey et al 2000] [Taylor and Kuchar 2000] [Billingsley et al 2001] [Boehm et al 2001] [Jenkins et al 2001] [Liggett and Gallimore 2001] [Reid and Sattler 2001] [Rostad et al 2001] [Wodke and Hopper 2001] [Advanced Cockpit Automation 2002] [Bailey et al 2002] [Bartlett and Freeman 2002] [Control Augmentation and Cockpit 2002] [Diem 2002] [Hart and Fechtig 2002] [Jenkins et al 2002] [Jenkins et al 2002] [Jenkins et al 2002] [Kruk et al 2002] [Marasco 2002] [Mulholland 2002] [Rash and Harding 2002] [Rash et al 2002] [Rostad and Rash 2002] [Shaw 2002] [Snow and French 2002] [Alexander et al 2003] [French and Schnell 2003] [Jenkins 2003] [Jenkins et al 2003] [Keller et al 2003] [Kumagai et al 2003] [Rogers et al 2003] [Rostad et al 2003] [Sheesley et al 2003] [Stark 2003] [Stelle et al 2003] [Davis et al 2004] [Dowell et al 2004] [Flight Displays II Head-Up 2004] [Hiatt et al 2004] [Jenkins et al 2004] [Kramer et al 2004] [Prinzo 2004] [Szoboszlay et al 2004] [Wickens et al 2004] [Arthur III et al 2005] [Field and Sailer 2005] [Harding et al 2005] [Kramer et al 2005] [Rash and Hiatt 2005] [Winterbottom et al 2005] [Winterbottom et al 2005] [Arthur III et al 2006] [Bailey et al 2006] [Liu et al 2006] [Panoramic cockpit display system 2006] [Parise and McIntire 2006] [Rash et al 2006] [Szoboszlay et al 2006] [Turpin et al 2006] [Turpin et al 2006] [Valens and Zon 2006] [Domino 2007] [He et al 2007] [Howells 2007] [Howells and Brown 2007] [Kalich et al 2007] [Winterbottom et al 2007] [Gates et al 2008] [Hart and Williams 2008] [He et al 2008] [Jenkins 2008] [Jenkins and Gallimore 2008] [Larsson and Blomqvist 2008] [Sanders-Reed et al 2008] [Wisely 2008] [Boone et al 2009] [He et al 2009] [Jennings et al 2009] [Kalich et al 2009] [Kim and Kaber 2009] [Lampazzi et al 2009] [Normark et al 2009] [Stuart et al 2009] [Wisely 2009] [Ferris et al 2010] [Francis and Rash 2010] [Kaufmann and Kaber 2010] [van der Vorst and de Reus 2010] [Atac and Edel 2011] [Kim et al 2011] [O’Connor and Johnson 2011] [Wan et al 2011] [Ashcraft and Atac 2012] [Liu et al 2012] [Liu et al 2012] [Renner 2012] [Arthur et al 2013] [Barber et al 2013] [He 2013] [Liu et al 2013] [O’Brien et al 2013] [Wang et al 2013] [Arthur et al 2014] [Gao et al 2014] [Nicholl 2014] [Pleasants 2014] [Sun et al 2014] [Wang et al 2014] [Ahlstrom 2015] [Cheung et al 2015] [Fares and Jordan 2015] [Jenkins et al 2015] [Kawamorita 2015] [Shinohara 2015] [Winterbottom et al 2015] [Effects of modes of 2016] [Lueken et al 2016] [Richards and Lamb 2016] [Xiaonan et al 2016] [da Silva Rosa et al 2017] [Davy et al 2017] [Stanton et al 2017] [Wood and Howells 2017] [Browne and Moffitt 2018] [Harding et al 2018] [Khan et al 2018] [Moffitt and Browne 2019] [Blundell et al 2020] [Blundell et al 2020] [Erazo et al 2021] [Sartaj et al 2021] [Ge et al 2022] [Karatana and Ekenel 2022] [Kumar et al 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Hao et al 2023] [Laudien et al 2023] [Paul et al 2023] [Pradhan 2023] [Hirao et al 2024] [Reji 2025] [Wu et al 2025] [Zhu et al 2025] [Zhu et al 2025] [Aerospace Active Inceptor Systems] [Appendix A Electronic Display] [Appendix B Electronic Display] [Appendix C Electronic Display] [Billingsley et al] [Cockpit Display of Data] [Diefes and Deering] [Ertem] [Flight DECK, Head-Up Displays] [Head-Up Display HUD System] [Human Engineering Considerations for] [Human Interface Design Methodology] [Jennings and Powell] [Location of and Display] [McDaniel] [Minimum Performance Standard for] [null] [Optical Measurement Procedures for] [Reising et al] [Sheldon] [Snow and French] [Swenson et al] [Taylor and Kuchar] [Transport Category Airplane Head]

The high angle of attack work this airframe did first

The airframe’s earlier work and its neighbours. High angle of attack aerodynamics, post-stall flight, departure and spin, forebody vortex control and thrust vectoring, including the programmes that flew the same subject on other aeroplanes.

375 records. [Foa 1942] [Seidman 1942] [Huffschmid 1950] [Erwin et al 1964] [Hall 1965] [Ray 1965] [Bihrle 1970] [Bowman 1970] [Casteel and Weyl 1970] [Chambers and Bowman 1971] [Esker and Sedrick 1972] [Milillo 1972] [Nial 1972] [Weissman 1972] [Petit and Scholey 1973] [Weissman 1973] [Ericsson and Reding 1974] [Davis and Hines 1976] [Gilbert et al 1976] [Goetz et al 1976] [Johnston and Hogge 1976] [Kroeger and Feistel 1976] [Nguyen et al 1976] [Stengel 1976] [Rolls and Aoyagi 1977] [Anderson 1978] [Anglin 1978] [Berrier and Re 1978] [Lampard 1978] [Langham 1978] [Nelson and Mouch 1978] [Bergman 1979] [Mello and Agnew 1979] [Moul and Brown 1979] [Nguyen 1979] [Yi et al 1979] [Bihrle and Billy 1980] [Bihrle and Barnhart 1980] [Johnson et al 1980] [Nguyen et al 1980] [Mehra and Carroll 1980] [Moore et al 1980] [Nguyen et al 1980] [Schiff et al 1980] [Gera et al 1981] [Bihrle and Barnhart 1982] [Croom et al 1982] [Grafton et al 1982] [Orlik-Ruckemann 1982] [Skow et al 1982] [Tischler and Barlow 1982] [Durston and Schreiner 1983] [Miller 1983] [Murri et al 1983] [Pelikan 1983] [Skow and Peake 1983] [Taylor and Pamadi 1983] [Wooten et al 1984] [Bobbitt and Foughner 1985] [Ostowari and Naik 1985] [Bigler 1986] [Capone and Mason 1986] [Goodman and Conigliaro 1986] [Hess 1986] [Imlay 1986] [Miller 1986] [Rhodeside 1986] [Ward and Stout 1986] [Berrier and Mason 1987] [Malcolm and Nelson 1987] [Stalford 1987] [Tape et al 1987] [Costes 1988] [Hess et al 1988] [Taylor 1988] [Abed 1989] [Ericsson 1989] [Garrard et al 1989] [Lan et al 1989] [Mace et al 1989] [Malcolm et al 1989] [Schirmer and Capone 1989] [Abed and Lee 1990] [Bursey and Dickinson 1990] [Gilbert et al 1990] [Jahnke and Culick 1990] [Klein et al 1990] [Lewis 1990] [Snow 1990] [Bowers et al 1991] [Clark and Bernens 1991] [Foster et al 1991] [Hoerter et al 1991] [King et al 1991] [Lamont and Kennaugh 1991] [Moes and Whitmore 1991] [Narain 1991] [Pahle et al 1991] [Planeaux 1991] [Snell et al 1991] [Whitaker et al 1991] [White 1991] [Wing and Asbury 1991] [Yeh et al 1991] [Baumann and Gal-Or 1992] [Bugajski and Enns 1992] [Capone et al 1992] [Del Frate 1992] [Gal-Or 1992] [Herrick 1992] [Knox 1992] [Krumenacker and Pellicano 1992] [Lackey and Hadfield 1992] [Peron and Carpenter 1992] [Rao 1992] [Regenie et al 1992] [Rom 1992] [Smith and Pellicano 1992] [Adams 1993] [Buffington et al 1993] [Cler et al 1993] [Cornelius and Lucius 1993] [Cornelius and Lucius 1993] [Croom et al 1993] [Cui et al 1993] [Ericsson 1993] [Foster et al 1993] [Gal-Or and Sherbaum 1993] [Kobayakawa et al 1993] [Linton 1993] [Ogburn et al 1993] [Ostroff and Proffitt 1993] [Sato et al 1993] [Widing 1993] [Wong et al 1993] [Boalbey et al 1994] [Bowers et al 1994] [Canter and Groves 1994] [Cobleigh 1994] [Gal-Or 1994] [Huber and Seamount 1994] [Matesanz et al 1994] [McInville and Moore 1994] [Murri et al 1994] [Hall et al 1994] [Sternberg et al 1994] [Walchli 1994] [Whitaker and Gowadia 1994] [Zell 1994] [Alcorn et al 1995] [Cho and Cho 1995] [Durham 1995] [Gal-Or 1995] [Lin et al 1995] [Matesanz et al 1995] [Morelli 1995] [Telionis 1995] [Valasek and Downing 1995] [Bacon et al 1996] [Bowers 1996] [Bowers and Pahle 1996] [Carpenter et al 1996] [Friehmelt 1996] [Napolitano et al 1996] [Napolitano et al 1996] [Pahle et al 1996] [Roos 1996] [duPont and duPont 1997] [Hamed et al 1997] [Iliff and Wang 1997] [Iliff and Wang 1997] [Ize et al 1997] [Sitz et al 1997] [Ulizar 1997] [Walsh et al 1997] [Wu et al 1997] [Ericsson and Beyers 1998] [Flamm 1998] [Gillard 1998] [Hsiao et al 1998] [Orme et al 1998] [Orme and Sims 1998] [Ostroff 1998] [Sherbaum and Lichtsinder 1998] [Van Poppel et al 1998] [Wu et al 1998] [Kutschera and Render 1999] [Mendenhall and Perkins 1999] [Miller et al 1999] [Orme and Sims 1999] [Vlachos et al 1999] [He and Kral 2000] [Jiméneze and Icaza 2000] [Steer 2000] [Steer 2000] [Gal-Or 2001] [Roos 2001] [Telionis 2001] [Beyers 2002] [Williams and Vittal 2002] [Deere 2003] [Deere et al 2003] [Fisher and Murri 2003] [Rullan et al 2003] [Underwood et al 2003] [Waithe and Deere 2003] [Wilson et al 2003] [Allwine et al 2004] [Anderson 2004] [Cunningham et al 2004] [Rullan et al 2004] [Tamrat 2004] [Collins Jr 2005] [Hassan 2005] [Hui-min et al 2005] [May and Gutmark 2005] [The Vertical Wind Tunnel 2005] [Atesoglu and Özgören 2006] [Erdem et al 2006] [Flamm et al 2006] [Ghosh et al 2006] [Hassan 2006] [Mangin et al 2006] [Rullan et al 2006] [Sobester and Keane 2006] [Sosa et al 2006] [Adavbiele and Salami 2007] [Atesoglu and Özgören 2007] [De Blauwe et al 2007] [Deere et al 2007] [Flamm et al 2007] [Hiroyuki Takano et al 2007] [Wang et al 2007] [Atesoglu and Özgören 2008] [Bolitho and Jacob 2008] [Zhang et al 2008] [Adavbiele 2009] [Adavbiele 2009] [Johnson and Lind 2009] [Liu et al 2009] [Taira and Colonius 2009] [Aircraft Wing Rock in 2010] [Eilers et al 2010] [Kubo et al 2010] [Shin et al 2010] [Sutton and Gopalarathnam 2010] [Zafirov 2010] [Atesoglu and Ozgoren 2011] [Johnson and Lind 2012] [Paul and Gopalarathnam 2012] [Pucci 2012] [Li et al 2013] [Pastorelli 2013] [Vinayagam and Sinha 2013] [Yeo et al 2013] [Zhao-miao and Chuan 2013] [Flight Characteristics of Quad 2014] [Masarati et al 2014] [Paul et al 2014] [Prach and Tekinalp 2014] [Shi 2014] [Živković et al 2014] [Chunzhi et al 2015] [Dantsker and Selig 2015] [Fortis and Balint 2015] [Suñol Jiménez et al 2015] [Daljit Majil 2016] [de Freitas Virgílio Pereira et al 2016] [Ferlauto and Marsilio 2016] [Kölzsch et al 2016] [Li and Yang 2016] [Li et al 2016] [Marubashi and Miwa 2016] [Miwa and Maruhashi 2016] [Yongxi Lyu et al 2016] [Ferlauto and Marsilio 2017] [Hitzel 2017] [Uhlig and Selig 2017] [Baskaran et al 2018] [Bunge and Kroo 2018] [Buzica et al 2018] [Harisrinivasan et al 2018] [Hyde et al 2018] [Ignatyev 2018] [Invernizzi and Lovera 2018] [Islam et al 2018] [Lyu et al 2018] [Ruetten 2018] [Zhelonkin 2018] [A feasibility review of 2019] [Berens 2019] [Capello et al 2019] [Chouicha et al 2019] [Cunningham et al 2019] [Ma et al 2019] [Experimental Investigations on the 2020] [Ferlauto et al 2020] [Liu et al 2020] [Akshay et al 2020] [Thrust Vectoring of a 2020] [Wang et al 2020] [Wang et al 2020] [Yong et al 2020] [Nimura et al 2021] [Nomizu et al 2021] [Resta et al 2021] [Salahudden et al 2021] [Tan et al 2021] [Chi et al 2022] [Computational Investigation of Effects 2022] [Heinrich et al 2022] [Resta et al 2022] [Soundararajan 2022] [Vivarelli 2022] [Yang et al 2022] [Zhang et al 2022] [Afridi et al 2023] [Afridi et al 2023] [Afridi et al 2023] [Mandralis et al 2023] [Mareca Rios et al 2023] [Tan et al 2023] [Tanveer and Ahmad 2023] [Afridi et al 2024] [Application of Fluidic Thrust 2024] [Computational and Experimental Analysis 2024] [Das et al 2024] [Joseph et al 2024] [Nayebi and Taeibi Rahni 2024] [Park et al 2024] [Salahudden 2024] [Shi et al 2024] [Simonet et al 2024] [Xu et al 2024] [Zhang et al 2024] [Zhang et al 2024] [Bagherzadeh et al 2025] [Bhabar and Mukesh Sharma 2025] [Computational Investigation of Fluidic 2025] [Ha et al 2025] [Huang et al 2025] [Liu et al 2025] [Oganyan and Loginov 2025] [Ravindranath 2025] [Salahudden et al 2025] [Vohra and Kumar 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Zylevich and Oliinyk 2025] [Aroussi 2026] [Baldini et al 2026] [Calme et al 2026] [Durán-Delfín et al 2026] [Gupta 2026] [Huang et al 2026] [Kim 2026] [Liu et al 2026] [Liu et al 2026] [Shukla et al 2026] [Tcherak et al 2026] [Wang et al 2026] [Yu and Yu 2026] [Zhang 2026] [Zhijie et al 2026] [Wang et al 2027] [Abed] [Ale Isaac Khoueini] [Beebe] [Case] [Dolly] [Gal-Or] [Imbaratto] [In-Flight Thrust Determination for] [Merceruio] [Paris] [Zmijanovic]

The hardware between the command and the aeroplane

The actuators the simulation cannot choose. Flight control actuators and servovalves, electrohydraulic and electromechanical actuation, hinge moments, flight control software, and the sampling and computational delay of digital control.

143 records. [Smith 1928] [Hall 1947] [Kinney et al 1958] [Hopkin and Ogata 1959] [Herdeg et al 1963] [McCollom and Stewart 1964] [Rinde 1969] [Campbell 1971] [Lauchle 1974] [Powell and Katz 1974] [Apu/hydraulic/actuator Subsystem Computer Simulation 1975] [Eijsink and Rice 1978] [Webb and Blech 1979] [Demerdash and Nehl 1980] [Jenney 1980] [Popov 1980] [Himich and Kineyko 1981] [Popov 1981] [Jackson and Coyle 1983] [Hriber 1984] [Servo-control device for aircraft 1984] [Wittenmark 1984] [Sheth and Nanda 1985] [Caglayan et al 1988] [Kim 1989] [Chi 1990] [CJ89-48. Identification of multi-variable 1990] [Tseng 1990] [Ulbrich and Althaus 1991] [Wang and Lin 1991] [Regenie et al 1992] [Flavell 1993] [On the sampling-time effects 1994] [Regenie et al 1994] [Wang et al 1994] [Feuer and Goodwin 1996] [Hughes 1996] [Waszak and Fung 1996] [Hammer and Bright 1998] [Kim and Tsu-Chin Tsao 1998] [Ursu et al 1998] [Mimo Two-Stage Actuator Model 2000] [Krishnaswamy and Li 2001] [Chen et al 2002] [Kapila and Pan 2002] [Karpenko and Sepehri 2003] [Samaranayake et al 2005] [Wang et al 2005] [Ayalew and Jablokow 2006] [Ayalew and Kulakowski 2006] [English et al 2006] [Corradini 2006] [Metwally et al 2006] [Shu Wang et al 2006] [Ayalew 2007] [Celmins 2007] [Lavretsky and Hovakimyan 2007] [Shageer et al 2008] [Nakkarat and Kuntanapreeda 2009] [Singhal et al 2009] [Kasnakoglu and Kaynak 2010] [Jianyong and Zongxia 2011] [Kondo and Ochi 2011] [Marusak and Kuntanapreeda 2011] [Buchstaller et al 2012] [Gupta 2012] [Kusano and Yamashita 2012] [Liu et al 2012] [Park and Chung 2012] [Robust Arbitrary Reference Command 2012] [Sangpet and Kuntanapreeda 2012] [Yaoxing Shang et al 2012] [Appendix B Actuator dynamics 2013] [Atinç and Benosman 2013] [Ganguli 2013] [Guo et al 2013] [Hussain et al 2013] [O’Brien and Carruthers 2013] [Zamaraev and Popov 2013] [Kheowree and Kuntanapreeda 2014] [Mercorelli and Werner 2014] [Welstead and Crouse 2014] [Almutairi and Aouf 2015] [Battipede et al 2015] [Denieul et al 2015] [Effect of Leakage in 2015] [Liu and Lee 2015] [Liyan Wen et al 2015] [Wang and Guo 2015] [Xiao et al 2015] [Liu et al 2016] [Ho and Lai 2017] [Rohani and Wu 2017] [Enciu et al 2018] [McCuish and Caldwell 2018] [Yu et al 2018] [Zhu et al 2018] [Xie et al 2019] [Xu et al 2019] [Yurkevich 2019] [Guo and Sui 2020] [Ye et al 2020] [Ye et al 2020] [Zhao et al 2020] [Chen and Zhang 2021] [De Martin et al 2021] [Deb et al 2021] [Di Rito et al 2021] [Gruenwald and Bryson 2021] [Kumar et al 2021] [Chen et al 2022] [Pavlenko and Reslan 2022] [Sidhom et al 2022] [Zhao et al 2022] [Fadel 2023] [Kumar and Mandal 2023] [Nguyen et al 2023] [Wauthion et al 2023] [Tapia-Muñoz et al 2024] [Hu et al 2025] [Lucarini et al 2025] [Performance evaluation of on-board 2025] [Jiang et al 2026] [Solarte-Pineda et al 2026] [Yang 2026] [Active Disturbance Rejection Control] [Actuators Aircraft Flight Controls] [Aerospace - Flight Control] [Aerospace Fluid Power] [Bayram and Chang] [Bertoluzzo et al] [Brauer] [Electrohydraulic Flow-Control Servovalves] [Electrohydraulic Mechanical Feedback Servoactuators] [Electrohydraulic Servovalves] [Flight Control Actuators] [Heath] [McCollom] [Pasrija] [Servoactuators Aircraft Flight Controls] [Shen Yili et al] [Shuhao Chen and Gang Tao] [Vyas]

Measuring any of it in the air

Flight test. Technique, instrumentation, data analysis, planning and safety, and flight test engineering education.

216 records. [Kerber 1927] [Hockman and Eisiminger 1948] [Schumacher 1952] [Johnson 1959] [Bryan 1961] [Eppley 1963] [Sehnert 1963] [Godwin et al 1964] [Vagianos and Rooney 1964] [Flight Test Instrumentation 1965] [Kidd 1965] [Sanderson 1965] [Alscher et al 1966] [Herrington et al 1966] [Platou 1968] [Prahl 1968] [Belinne and Tonini 1969] [Cruz et al 1969] [Yoshitaka 1969] [Burgess 1970] [Flight Test Programme 1970] [Fosdick 1970] [Hall et al 1972] [Hodapp and Beckmann 1972] [Simpson 1972] [Smetana et al 1972] [Wingrove 1972] [Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards Afb Ca 1974] [Linderman et al 1974] [Marshall and Steinmann 1974] [Johnson 1975] [Gee et al 1976] [Bridges et al 1977] [Boirun 1978] [Simpson 1979] [Tangler 1979] [Bach 1980] [Cooke 1980] [Hutchinson and Steinmann 1980] [Baer-Riedhart 1981] [Bleimeyer 1981] [Knaus 1981] [Large et al 1981] [Petersen 1981] [Svec 1981] [Taylor and Klein 1981] [Bach 1982] [Rising 1982] [Braman et al 1983] [Knaus 1983] [Lamy 1983] [Meyer and Schneider 1983] [Rosenberg and Schuch 1983] [Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development 1984] [Hinton 1984] [Hutchinson and Miller 1984] [Layton 1984] [Perry 1984] [Yechout and Braman 1984] [Flight-test evaluation of engine 1985] [Scherz and Tucker 1985] [Brooks 1986] [Demo 1986] [Weiss et al 1986] [Hicks et al 1987] [Keyser 1987] [Analysis of Gust-Response Flight-Test 1988] [Bach and McNally 1988] [Bertelrud et al 1988] [Bui et al 1988] [Hicks and Petersen 1988] [McNally and Bach 1988] [Roberts and Brown 1988] [Stilley 1988] [Verhaegen 1988] [Ward 1988] [Hicks and Petersen 1989] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1990] [Khalid and Faherty 1990] [Whitmore et al 1990] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1991] [Wulff and Zoellner 1991] [Bogue 1992] [Gilyard and Orme 1992] [Knighton 1992] [Nippress and Wilson 1992] [Platz and Bounajem 1992] [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1993] [Chandler and Chisholm 1993] [Orme and Gilyard 1993] [Brennan and McDaniel 1994] [Everett and Oster 1994] [Hart 1994] [Hensley 1994] [Pawlak 1994] [Fischenberg 1995] [Menges 1995] [Morelli 1995] [Morelli and Klein 1995] [Stottier 1995] [Traven and Whitley 1995] [Hensley 1996] [Hulshoff et al 1996] [Meyyappa 1996] [Bruce et al 1998] [Sarkar and Panneerselvam 1998] [Klein and Murphy 1999] [Kraus et al 1999] [Niewald and Parker 1999] [Niewald and Parker 2000] [Randall et al 2000] [Alaverdi and Paris 2001] [Brandon et al 2001] [Ellis et al 2001] [Wolf and Bossert 2001] [Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards Afb Ca 2002] [Bruner 2002] [Burnett 2002] [Wang et al 2002] [Dynamic Longitudinal Stability Flight 2003] [Iqbal 2003] [Level Flight Performance Flight 2003] [Methods for Reducing Data 2003] [Paris and Bonner 2003] [Ron and Yona 2003] [Adelgren et al 2004] [Alford 2004] [Minor et al 2004] [Ueno et al 2004] [Veselenak and Beutelman 2004] [Blackstock and Theobalds 2005] [Stoliker 2005] [Whalen and Bragg 2005] [Hiliuta and Botez 2006] [Toupet and Mettler 2006] [Cotting et al 2007] [Henwood and Huete 2007] [Lewis 2007] [Lightweight low-cost flight test 2007] [Flight Test Maneuvers and 2008] [Hurst and Collins 2008] [De Jesus Mota and Botez 2009] [Leon et al 2009] [Lichter et al 2009] [McCormick 2011] [Morelli 2011] [Brieger et al 2012] [Klipa 2012] [Liu et al 2012] [Asher et al 2013] [Dorobantu et al 2013] [Madhusudana Rao et al 2014] [Mallozzi et al 2014] [Nusrath et al 2014] [Shelton et al 2014] [Tucker et al 2014] [Van Bavel 2014] [Bunge et al 2015] [Klyde et al 2015] [Lee and Han 2015] [Olson 2015] [Wartmann 2015] [Flight Test Data Analysis 2016] [Larsson and Enqvist 2016] [Van Bavel et al 2016] [Banu et al 2017] [Grauer et al 2017] [Kish et al 2017] [Knapp et al 2017] [Optimization and Flight-Test Evaluation 2017] [Fu 2018] [McAteer et al 2018] [Abdulrahim 2019] [Castilho 2020] [Yasue 2020] [Aircraft and Flight Test 2021] [Flight Test Planning 2021] [Lopez et al 2021] [Morelli 2021] [Yang 2021] [Hofmann et al 2022] [Hua 2022] [Li et al 2022] [Quinn 2022] [Wang 2022] [Deepa and Gupta 2023] [Liu et al 2023] [Patel et al 2023] [Raol and Singh 2023] [Rucci et al 2023] [Schrader 2023] [Sisson and Moncayo 2023] [Taranto and Abdulrahim 2023] [Yue et al 2023] [Zhang et al 2023] [Jia and Wang 2024] [Loughran et al 2024] [Monteil 2024] [White et al 2024] [Zahn and Eggum 2024] [Bai 2025] [Harper et al 2025] [Hashemi et al 2025] [Johnson et al 2025] [Padua and Preisighe Viana 2025] [Szymanski et al 2025] [Tardif and Myrand-Lapierre 2025] [Alexander et al 2026] [Balcan et al 2026] [Design validation and verification 2026] [Harper et al 2026] [Jaeger et al 2026] [Wade et al 2026] [Cotting et al] [Goupil] [Smith]

Stability, control effectiveness and the equations of motion

The flight mechanics the matrices are built from. Static and dynamic stability, control effectiveness and lift-curve slope, the equations of motion and flight dynamics of aeroplanes, rotorcraft and projectiles, and the flight envelope.

233 records. [Johnson 1935] [Metcalf 1936] [Metcalf 1936] [Weick and Jones 1937] [Baker 1941] [Recant 1941] [Wallace and Recant 1943] [Denaci 1945] [Kayten and Koven 1945] [MacLachlan 1945] [Williams 1945] [Ashkenas 1946] [Cornell Aeronautical Lab Inc Buffalo Ny 1947] [Deters and Russell 1947] [Hunton 1947] [Talmage and Reeder 1949] [Bouton 1950] [MacLeod 1952] [Yates 1952] [Chaplin 1953] [Stone and Bihrle 1953] [Stanbrook 1954] [Wernicke 1956] [Wernicke 1957] [Childress 1958] [Glahn and Povolny 1958] [Fournier 1959] [Perkins 1959] [Nonweiler 1960] [Wornom 1960] [Blenk 1962] [Macpherson 1962] [Brenckmann 1964] [Goland et al 1964] [Kehrer 1964] [Grosser 1965] [Nagel and Thomas 1965] [Beppu 1966] [Beppu et al 1966] [Butler et al 1966] [Harry and Trobaugh 1966] [Bihrle 1970] [Katz 1971] [Andrisani et al 1972] [Schwanz 1972] [Dahlke and Craft 1973] [Whoric 1973] [Lockwood 1974] [Butler 1976] [Paulson 1976] [Weick and Jones 1976] [Freeman and Wilhite 1979] [Paulson 1980] [Winther et al 1980] [Banks et al 1981] [Jacobs and Bartlett 1981] [Matheny and Panageas 1981] [Paulson 1981] [Goldberg 1982] [Chiarelli and Compton 1983] [Kohn 1983] [Keith and Selberg 1984] [Kendall 1984] [Murri et al 1984] [Winchenbach et al 1984] [Mooij 1985] [Goodrich and Sliwa 1987] [Barnhart et al 1988] [Celi 1988] [Flight Mechanics 1988] [Lowe 1988] [Ashkenas and Klyde 1989] [Cord 1989] [Laitone 1989] [Shrivastava and Stengel 1989] [Stephenson and Hardy 1989] [Longitudinal Dynamics 1990] [Streby 1990] [Strickland et al 1990] [Engelland 1991] [Wenxuan 1991] [Crites et al 1992] [Howard and Bray 1992] [Pallister et al 1992] [Chapter 12. Control of 1994] [McAllister 1994] [Birckelbaw et al 1995] [Porter and Howard 1996] [Andersen et al 1997] [Beyers et al 1997] [Borri et al 1997] [Definitions of Aerodynamic Stability 1997] [Traub 1997] [Turnour and Celi 1997] [Vyshinsky and Yaroshevsky 1998] [Ize and Arena 1999] [Smith 1999] [Addendum 2 Longitudinal Control 2000] [Jenkins et al 2000] [Bottasso and Ragazzi 2001] [Flight Vehicle Aerodynamic Control 2001] [Smetana 2001] [Zink et al 2001] [Equations of Motion for 2002] [Nangia and Palmer 2002] [Bossert et al 2003] [Dynamic Lateral-Directional Stability Theory 2003] [Dynamic Longitudinal Stability Theory 2003] [Lateral-Directional Stability Theory and 2003] [Longitudinal Control and Trim 2003] [Methods for Improving Longitudinal 2003] [Miller et al 2003] [Static Longitudinal Stability Flight 2003] [Static Longitudinal Stability Theory 2003] [Bridges 2005] [Chapter 2. Exploring the 2005] [Damveld and Mulder 2005] [Dogan et al 2005] [Yilmaz and Yillikci 2005] [Bedford and Lowenberg 2006] [Perez et al 2006] [Sahu 2006] [An Establishment of Canard-Leading 2007] [Baumann et al 2007] [Definitions of Aerodynamic Stability 2007] [Grant and Lind 2007] [Helicopter Flight Dynamics an 2007] [Holzapfel et al 2007] [Kinematics and Flight Dynamics 2007] [Modelling Helicopter Flight Dynamics 2007] [Modelling Helicopter Flight Dynamics 2007] [Padfield 2007] [Walker and Perfect 2007] [Baumann et al 2008] [Rowley 2008] [Urnes et al 2008] [Ghoreyshi et al 2009] [Keller et al 2009] [Raghavan and Patil 2009] [Roberts and Lind 2009] [Stenfelt and Ringertz 2009] [Cicolani et al 2010] [Eaton and Woolf 2010] [Kaiyuan et al 2010] [Moncayo et al 2010] [Rowley 2010] [Appendix A Relevant flight 2011] [From Steady Flight to 2011] [From Steady Flight to 2011] [Orr 2011] [Bazile and Calderara 2012] [Hoe et al 2012] [Xu 2012] [Abdallah et al 2013] [Appendix C Equations of 2013] [Definitions of Aerodynamic Stability 2013] [Nguyen et al 2013] [Vale J 2013] [Abdallah et al 2014] [Ansari et al 2014] [Flight Dynamics of Elastic 2014] [Matsuda et al 2014] [Vicroy et al 2014] [Zheng et al 2014] [Araujo-Estrada et al 2015] [Exploring the Flight Envelope 2015] [Lateral-Directional Motions 2015] [Nicolosi et al 2015] [Redelinghuys et al 2015] [Araujo-Estrada et al 2016] [Fundamental study on ideal 2016] [Motahari et al 2016] [Nguyen 2016] [Oliviero et al 2016] [Park et al 2016] [Stanisławski 2016] [Zhou et al 2016] [Fang et al 2017] [Horst et al 2017] [Niemiec and Gandhi 2017] [Von Hor and Guess 2017] [Abdallah 2018] [Changchuan et al 2018] [Kaygan and Ulusoy 2018] [Kinematics and Flight Dynamics 2018] [Modelling Helicopter Flight Dynamics 2018] [Modelling Helicopter Flight Dynamics 2018] [Xiao et al 2018] [Yuan and Li 2018] [Lu et al 2019] [Yuan et al 2019] [Czyba and Kronhof 2020] [Gao et al 2020] [Bryson et al 2021] [Frolov 2021] [Gutierrez-Castillo et al 2021] [Longitudinal Stability 2021] [Bath et al 2022] [Butler et al 2022] [Coleman and Benedict 2022] [Gudmundsson 2022] [Goetzendorf-Grabowski and Kwiek 2023] [Kadhim and Shahid 2023] [Li 2023] [Li et al 2023] [Singh 2023] [Time-Domain Unsteady Aerodynamics for 2023] [Vepa 2023] [Henry et al 2024] [Herdiana et al 2024] [Introduction to Aircraft Flight 2024] [Jalil et al 2024] [Ribera Vicent and Khamlichi 2024] [Shayak et al 2024] [Efimov and Zolghadri 2025] [Hartman et al 2025] [Martin 2025] [Wang and Cao 2025] [Wang et al 2025] [Wechtler et al 2025] [Williams et al 2025] [Alt 2026] [Asaro and Vos 2026] [Riethausen 2026] [Rigid-Body Flight Dynamics 2026] [Xie et al 2026] [Adnan] [Simmons et al] [Simmons and Busan] [Daud Filho] [Flight dynamics � Vocabulary] [Wall et al] [Moormann]

Simulation models, turbulence and the atmosphere

What a simulation computes. Mathematical models of aircraft and rotorcraft for flight simulation, atmospheric turbulence and wind-shear models, and the standard atmosphere.

76 records. [Air Force Test Pilot School Edwards Afb Ca 1962] [Cooksey et al 1964] [Papadopoulos 1967] [Blake et al 1970] [Davis 1974] [McFarland 1975] [Fichtl 1977] [Jewell and Heffley 1978] [Chen 1979] [Hsieh 1979] [Weeks 1979] [Huguenin 1981] [Nagabhushan and Tomlinson 1981] [Ivan 1985] [Trevino 1986] [Bowles and Frost 1987] [McFarland and Bunnell 1990] [Kim et al 1993] [Sarathy and Murthy 1993] [Hensley 1994] [Repperger 1995] [McMinn 1997] [Airframe and Atmosphere Modeling 1998] [Mello 1998] [Yeager 1998] [Ro et al 1999] [Celi and Theodore 2000] [Hablowetz 2000] [Phillips et al 2000] [Appendix B Properties of 2003] [Zhao et al 2004] [Kokes et al 2006] [Dreier 2007] [Introduction to the Flight 2007] [Modelling Helicopter Flight Dynamics 2007] [Chen et al 2008] [Heffley 2010] [Lawrence et al 2011] [Ercole et al 2012] [Shah and Hill 2012] [Goulos et al 2014] [Vepa 2014] [Bronz and Hattenberger 2016] [Flight Simulation 2016] [He et al 2016] [Tischler and Tobias 2016] [Akram et al 2017] [Dreier 2017] [Krishnamurthi and Gandhi 2017] [Freeman and Klunk 2018] [Hitzel and Zimper 2018] [Introduction to the Flight 2018] [Madden 2018] [Makeich and Kryukov 2018] [Modelling Helicopter Flight Dynamics 2018] [Matějů 2019] [Castells Marin and Poetsch 2020] [Do et al 2023] [Kostin and Zhuravskiy 2023] [Liu et al 2023] [Mailhot et al 2023] [Math Model Assembly and 2023] [Vepa 2023] [Zhou et al 2023] [Johnson et al 2024] [Xiong and Nguyen 2024] [Avoni et al 2025] [Caudle et al 2025] [Habana et al 2025] [Mathur and Atkins 2025] [Morlang and Strassburger 2025] [Zhang 2025] [Dreier 2026] [Behrendt] [Castells Marin] [Caudle et al]

Where the Framing Breaks Down

The framing of this article is that the vehicle drops out of the argument, and it does not drop out entirely. The Research Question sets the airframe aside on the ground that the condition for exact model following is about the host’s controls and not about its performance. That holds for the algebra. It fails in four places, and the article says so at each of them.

The hardware returns through the actuators. The rate limits and the actuator lag belong to the host, so the instrument simulates the model plus itself, and the equivalence a vanishing projector licenses holds exactly only in the algebra. Dependent Systems measures by how much, and the account of the autonomy flights states the same limit for that work.

The numbers are not the aeroplane’s. The worked residual and the deflection figures use representative short-period matrices, because the published F-16 aerodynamic data is tabular and graphical [Nguyen, Ogburn, Gilbert, Kibler, Brown and Deal, Simulator Study of Stall and Post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane With Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability, NASA Technical Paper 1538, December 1979], and the rate limits are those of a production F-16 as modelled in 1979. What survives is a statement about the shape of the problem, which Epistemic State distinguishes from a measurement of this aeroplane.

The count stands on a list the article has not seen in a primary source. Three controls per axis depends on a six-item list of commanded surfaces taken from two secondary web references [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org] [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net], and a single wrong entry would take a column from its axis and stop the projector vanishing.

The readout is less precise than the instrument. Dependent Systems closes with the Cooper-Harper scale, which is ordinal, so however exact the simulation, the result returns as a number a human being picks out of ten boxes. The framing can measure the instrument and cannot measure the judgement the instrument exists to inform.

The Source Base

The survey’s 7,000 research records come from the Crossref registry, the NASA technical reports server and the Defense Technical Information Center, and every one of them is cited in the section headed The Contemporary Literature. A further 155 definitions are hand-written, being 79 primary documents and encyclopaedic anchors, 14 books and 62 back-references to earlier articles in this series.

The Definition of Primary

A report primary here means an item served by the NASA technical reports server or registered under the Defense Technical Information Center’s prefix, 10.21236. The survey holds 979 of them, 14.0 percent of 7,000 records. A further 14 report primaries are among the 155 hand-written definitions, and they are counted separately because the survey statistic describes the survey’s research records. Folding a curated citation into a survey ratio would make the ratio mean two things at once. The rule reaches the report literature and the school’s textbook chapters and does not reach the journal and conference papers in which most of the model-following and loop-design work is published, so 14.0 percent is a lower bound on how much of the survey is first-hand.

Where the Report Primaries Are, and Where They Are Not

The report primaries are not spread evenly over the clusters.

Cluster	Records	Report primaries	Share
The aeroplane, the laboratory and the programmes flown on it	73	21	28.8 percent
Simulation models, turbulence and the atmosphere	76	19	25.0 percent
Stability, control effectiveness and the equations of motion	233	55	23.6 percent
The measurement, being handling and flying qualities	645	139	21.6 percent
The human being deceived, and the models made of that human	307	61	19.9 percent
The cockpit, which is this aeroplane’s own documented work	369	72	19.5 percent
The instrument, being variable stability aeroplanes and in-flight simulation	712	138	19.4 percent
Measuring any of it in the air	216	35	16.2 percent
The hardware between the command and the aeroplane	143	20	14.0 percent
Getting the model in the first place	387	54	14.0 percent
The high angle of attack work this airframe did first	375	51	13.6 percent
Designing the loop	1,759	216	12.3 percent
The characteristic failure, being pilot-induced oscillation and rate limiting	402	27	6.7 percent
Model following, which is the mathematics of pretending	891	51	5.7 percent
The autonomy the X number was for	412	20	4.9 percent

The keystone is the second thinnest cluster in the article and the publisher composition says why rather than excusing it. Model following sits at 5.7 percent against the article’s 14.0. Venues are counted here by name after setting aside years, punctuation, the abbreviations a society or conference prints beside its own name, the phrases proceedings of and and Exhibit, and the word Navigation, so that one conference filed under several names counts once, and every one of the cluster’s 891 records is in the denominator, including the 66 that carry no venue. On that rule one aeronautical society’s guidance and control conference holds 11.9 percent of the cluster, and no other venue holds more than five percent of it. The next are the American Control Conference at 4.7 percent, the same society’s SciTech forum at 3.5, its own journal at 2.8 and a control-theory journal at 2.2. It is a dispersed conference and journal literature and it was never a report literature, which is a fact about where control theory publishes.

The aeronautical half of the same subject is report literature and the contrast is the evidence. In-flight simulation, which is model following carried out in an aeroplane rather than on paper, sits at 19.4 percent, 3.4 times the keystone’s.

The thinnest cluster is the autonomy the X number was for at 4.9 percent and the thickest is the aeroplane, the laboratory and the programmes flown on it at 28.8.

The Programme’s Own Papers Form Two Sessions

The programme published eight papers at the 2023 SciTech forum of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and their identifiers fall in two contiguous blocks of four, 1744 to 1747 and 1925 to 1928, which is the shape of two conference sessions. They cover the aeroplane’s capabilities and architecture, the model-following algorithm and its control allocation, the design of the simulation system and its ground and flight testing, the design of the system for autonomous control of the simulation, the flight testing of the simulation and the autonomy, and a vision for accelerating autonomy test and evaluation on the aeroplane.

The registry also records a correction notice on one of the eight, which is a fact about the record rather than about the aeroplane. The article cites it and does not know what was corrected.

The School Teaches the Scale Its Own Aeroplane Is Measured On

The United States Air Force Test Pilot School publishes its Flying Qualities Phase textbook chapter by chapter into the defence registry. Chapter 16 is a reprint of NASA Technical Note D-5153, which is Cooper and Harper’s own paper defining the rating scale.

It closes a loop between the aeroplane that produces the stimulus and the scale the answer is written on, and it documents that loop in the school’s own publication.

What Was Read Rather Than Retrieved

The contract analysis is computed from 79 raw transactions rather than from any stated total. Each award’s visible transactions are summed and compared with the amount the registry states separately, and 17 of the 18 agree to the cent. The remaining one is excluded because part of it falls past this article’s date.

The dateline horizon is enforced at the source and not in the prose. 6 transactions carry an action date after 2025-12-07, of which 4 carry money totalling 782,854.00 dollars. One of them is the only place in the entire record where the designation appears, so an article that had filtered in the sentence rather than in the data would have reported the opposite of this record’s most interesting property.

Every published constant in the arithmetic comes from one NASA report that was downloaded and read. Its Table 1 gives the mass, inertias, wing geometry and surface deflection limits, and its Appendix A gives the actuator lag and the rate limit of every surface but the speedbrake. The report never names the aeroplane in its title and states in its appendix on aerodynamic data that the data came from wind-tunnel tests of subscale models of the F-16.

The programme’s own technical papers are cited for their existence, their authorship and their subject. Those are the facts the Crossref registry establishes, and each is stated as the registry records it. Their contents are not quoted and their findings are not represented, because this article has not read them.

That is a limit of the available record rather than a preference. Crossref carries an abstract for a great many works and an abstract is published metadata that may legitimately be read and quoted. It carries none for any of the eight, nor for the aeroplane’s two founding papers of 1984 and 1988. The publisher deposits the title, the authors, the venue and the year and nothing else, so the registry route stops exactly where the article stops.

Thin Subjects

Six subjects that this article’s derivations depend on have thin literatures. Each count below is the number of research records in this survey whose title carries at least one of the listed terms. Where a row joins two groups of terms with the word together, a title must carry a term from each group.

Subject	Title terms counted	Records
the pseudoinverse and the projector of the matching condition	pseudoinverse, pseudo-inverse, generalized inverse, generalised inverse, projector, Moore-Penrose	11
a rate limit read as a corner frequency	rate limit, rate limiting, rate limited, rate limiter, rate saturation, rate saturating together with frequency, bandwidth, corner	0
the equivalent delay of an in-flight simulator	time delay, time delays, transport delay, latency, equivalent delay together with in-flight simulation, in-flight simulator, in-flight and ground-based simulation, variable stability, airborne simulator, airborne simulation	2
direct lift control	direct lift	7
statistics of pilot ratings	pilot rating, pilot ratings, Cooper-Harper, handling qualities rating, handling qualities ratings together with statistic, statistical, variability, ordinal, median, nonparametric, treatment	4
autonomy hosted on an in-flight simulator	in-flight simulation, in-flight simulator, variable stability, airborne simulator, VISTA, X-62 together with autonomy, autonomous, artificial intelligence, unmanned, uncrewed, agent	1

The algebra of the keystone is not a title subject. Of the 11 titles that name a pseudoinverse, a generalised inverse or a projector, 8 concern allocation, 2 concern the reconfiguration of a flight control system and 1 applies a generalised inverse to model following, so the projector condition rests on the Technical Memorandum of 1967 and the linear algebra references rather than on a body of titles.

A rate limit has a literature and a frequency has a literature, and their quotient has none. No title in the survey pairs a rate limit with a frequency, a bandwidth or a corner, so the reading of a rate limit as a corner frequency, which decides where the simulation runs out of authority, rests on the published limits and on the arithmetic of the section headed Dependent Systems.

The delay floor of an in-flight simulator is the subject of 2 titles, both comparing manual control with added time delay in in-flight and ground-based simulation, so the floor this article derives from the actuator lag is bracketed by the literature rather than stated in it.

Direct lift control, which is what the symmetric flap supplies, holds 7 titles, so the claim that the flap is the missing column rests on the counting bound rather than on a literature of direct lift.

The statistics of pilot ratings hold 4 titles, 3 on the variability of ratings and 1 on the treatment of rating data, and none of them names an ordinal scale, a median or a nonparametric test, so the claim that a mean rating is a category error stands on the definition of the scale rather than on a published analysis of the practice.

Autonomy hosted on an in-flight simulator holds 1 title, an evaluation of the autonomous flying qualities of a simulated variable-stability aircraft [Hamidani and Kunz 2018].

One conclusion of this article has no aeronautical literature at all, and it is reported as such rather than softened. It is the claim that the contract record and the designation register are independent and here they agree. That is a claim about records rather than about aeroplanes, and it rests on the two records themselves, both of which are cited and both of which a reader can check.

What the Survey Admits

A record is admitted only when a person reading its title finds it on this article’s subject. The subjects are those the argument uses, being model following and model-reference control of any plant, variable-stability aircraft and flight simulation, pilot-induced oscillation and actuator saturation, handling qualities and pilot rating, the human operator as a controller, this aeroplane and its programmes, autonomy for aircraft and the verification of autonomous systems, system identification, flight control design, cockpit displays, high angle of attack flight, actuators and digital delay, flight test, and stability and control. General aerodynamics with no stability, control or flight dynamics content is not among them, so airfoil and wing computation, aircraft performance, propulsion, aeroelasticity and flutter, loads and structures, and acoustics are excluded even where the vehicle is an aeroplane, and no cluster collects records that fit nowhere else.

Several of this subject’s words also name something else, and a record that shares only such a word is excluded. The excluded literatures are road vehicles and their drivers, among them driving simulators and automotive head-up displays, together with clinical medicine and rehabilitation, robots and manipulators, ships and underwater vehicles, spacecraft attitude and orbit control, process, chemical, nuclear and power-system control, computer hard disk drives, coupled oscillators in physics and biology, railways, speech and audiology, agriculture, water treatment and batteries, and the biomechanics of rising from a chair. Tracking studies whose subject is a drug, a toxicant, hypnosis, noise or brain activity rather than the operator’s control behaviour are excluded, because the argument uses the human operator as a controller. Task allocation, command and control reference models and robot inverse dynamics share words with control allocation, reference models and dynamic inversion and are excluded as well. Correction, erratum, retraction and withdrawal notices, decision letters, reviewer reports and author responses, and figure and supplementary-material records are excluded too, because a survey counts research works and those are parts of works or editorial events rather than works. A review of a book, a reference, glossary or definition entry, a notice such as an editorial or a news item, and a second deposit of a document already counted are not admitted either, since none of them is a research work in its own right.

Three literatures that are contamination for other subjects are part of this one. The human-factors literature of cockpit displays and symbology is on subject, because this subject is a pilot in a cockpit being deceived about which aeroplane is being flown, and the aircraft’s own documented programme work is a programmable helmet-mounted display and a virtual head-up display. The curriculum literature of test pilot schools is on subject, because the aircraft is operated by a school and flown by its students. The physiology of pilot workload is on subject, because it is the discipline that measures a pilot, while clinical medicine is not.

Some records of doubtful relevance are kept. Model-reference and model-following control of plants other than aircraft, such as robots, reactors, power converters and a satellite, is kept because the method is the keystone. The verification and validation of autonomous ground, marine and space systems is kept beside the autonomy this aeroplane now hosts, and the handling qualities of spacecraft and lunar vehicles are kept because the measurement is the same. Each is kept, and a reader may weigh it accordingly.

Every research title has been read for relevance, so the off-topic share that remains is a matter of reading judgement. A reading of titles cannot show that a work is relevant in substance, so this is a statement about titles only.

Five Words That Name Something Else

Five of this subject’s words collide severely with other literatures.

In the Crossref registry the bare word VISTA names chiefly Microsoft Windows Vista administration books, together with the grammaticalisation of the Portuguese em vista de and place names, and nothing aeronautical among its leading results. Qualified as an in-flight simulator it names the aeroplane’s own founding papers from 1984 and 1988. The bare word therefore admits no record to this survey.

Skyborg cannot be qualified with autonomy. In the registry that word names Spinoza on autonomy, contractual autonomy, the autonomy of labour law, autonomy and paternalism, and autonomy in schooling. Autonomy is a word in political philosophy long before it is a word in aviation, and it is one of the worst qualifiers available for this subject.

ACE is the programme this aeroplane flew for and it collides with an economics subfield using the same three letters. Agent-Based Computational Economics is abbreviated ACE and has its own journals and calls for papers. The word agent makes it worse rather than better, because a surface-active agent is an agent. The survey therefore admits the programme only by its full name.

Calspan is a strong anchor and not a clean one, because it is a whole laboratory, so the bare name in the registry also covers its shock tunnels, a Chrysler research safety vehicle and electromagnetic wave absorption alongside its variable-stability aircraft. And NF-16D is an excellent anchor while 16D alone is not, the latter naming a Renaissance poem and a Nova Scotia map sheet.

Two of this article’s own words are internal homonyms, which is the most dangerous kind. Model following shares a participle with terrain following, which is a different problem, and simulation means a computer program everywhere in engineering while here it means an aeroplane.

Epistemic State

What Is Assumed

The short-period frequency against which the published rate limits are located. 4 radians per second is a representative value for a fighter and not a measurement of any aeroplane this machine simulates. The conclusion that the symmetric tail’s full-deflection corner frequency is the lowest of the four does not depend on it, because that is a ratio of two published numbers. The conclusion that the tail is rate limited at the short period does depend on it, and would fail for a model whose short period sat below 2.4 radians per second.

The frame rate of the digital implementation. Sixty hertz is assumed and is not known. It enters only the computational share of the delay floor. The actuator’s contribution of 49.5 milliseconds is published and is a floor on its own.

The separation between the two lifting controls’ centres of pressure. 0.6 chords is inferred from the published overall length and mean aerodynamic chord and from where a trailing-edge flap and a horizontal tail sit on an aeroplane of this layout. The identity that the determinant is proportional to that separation does not depend on the value. The condition numbers in the table beside it do, and are offered as a sensitivity rather than as a measurement.

The host and model matrices in the worked residual. These are representative short-period pairs. The published F-16 aerodynamic data is tabular and graphical, so this article has not computed the aeroplane’s control effectiveness matrix. What the worked example demonstrates is the asymmetry between the two rows, which follows from a tail making moment and a flap making lift and would survive any plausible choice of numbers. The deflection figures that follow from those matrices inherit the same status, so the finding that the flap saturates before the tail describes the shape of the problem and does not measure this aeroplane.

The crossover frequency of the pilot and vehicle loop. Three and six radians per second are taken as a bracket for compensatory tracking, and no source read here states the range, so both ends are assumptions. The phase the delay costs is proportional to that frequency, so the percentages of margin consumed scale directly with an assumed quantity, and they are stated as a range for that reason. The delay itself is published.

That an equivalent time delay is the right summary of the host’s contribution. The article checks the approximation rather than asserting it, finding the lag and a pure delay agreeing in phase to within about a seventh of a degree at four radians per second. Above about eight radians per second the approximation begins to matter, and the article makes no claim there.

That the list of surfaces the second flight control system commands is correct. This input bears the most load in the article and has the weakest sourcing. The counting bound, the rank deficits, the worked residual and the finding about which surface saturates all depend on a six-item list, and that list comes from two secondary web references which agree with one another [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org] [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net]. Two independent secondary sources agreeing is better than one and is not a primary. The programme’s architecture paper almost certainly states it [Cotting, Stephens, Cole, Barricklow and Gray, X-62 VISTA Capabilities and Architecture, AIAA SciTech 2023], and this article has not read it and will not paraphrase it. If that list is wrong in any one entry, the axis it belongs to loses a column and the projector stops vanishing. No single correction would do more damage to what follows.

That the register’s engines cell and the block convention are both correct. The resolution offered is that the aeroplane was re-engined, which two independent sources state. No source this article found addresses the inlet, the part of an engine change a block number encodes.

What Is Computed

The model-following conditions and the projector. The condition for exact model following, the gains when it holds, the residual when it does not, the error dynamics that residual drives, the steady error those dynamics settle to, and the rank bound that turns all of it into a count of control surfaces. These are algebra and carry no empirical content beyond the linearity of the two systems. The weaker condition for matching an output rather than a state is algebra of the same kind, and it appears here because it shows the counting bound to be sufficient rather than necessary.

The two short periods as modes. The natural frequency and damping of the host and the divergent root and time to double of the model, from the trace and determinant of each matrix.

The deflections the worked simulation demands, from the gains that solve the matching condition, together with the angle of attack at which each surface reaches its published limit and the bound the smallest singular value places on the whole gain matrix.

The describing-function gain of a rate limiter in deep saturation, from the triangular output such an element produces and the known fundamental of a triangular wave. The phase is not computed and is not quoted, for the reason the section gives.

The phase margin a delay consumes at a given crossover, from the integrator of the crossover model, and the frequency at which it consumes all of it.

The leading-edge flap schedule and the actuator in series, from the transfer functions the report prints, including the product of the schedule’s pole and the actuator’s time constant.

The invariance of the median and the non-invariance of the mean under a strictly increasing relabelling, the formal content of the claim that a mean rating is a category error.

The rank deficits by axis, from the published list of surfaces the second flight control system commands and the standard decomposition of aircraft dynamics into three dynamic states per axis.

The worked residual, including the row-wise fractions of 83.3 percent and 0.05 percent and their ratio of 1,677.

The determinant identity and the condition numbers, from geometry alone.

Every corner frequency in the limits table, from the deflection and rate limits published in NASA Technical Paper 1538, together with the usable fractions at the assumed short-period frequency.

The actuator corner frequency, its phase contribution and the equivalent delay, from the published lag.

Every figure in the contract analysis, summed from the transaction record rather than read from a stated total, with 17 of 18 awards agreeing to the cent with the total the registry states separately.

Every figure about the register, computed from the register’s table, including the count of rows containing the word redesignated and the ranking of this row’s description length.

What the Record Does Not Settle

Why the leading-edge flap is not commanded by the second flight control system. The article offers three reasons, being the surface’s slow actuator, its low full-deflection corner frequency, and the fact that it is already carrying a scheduled command whose lead its actuator very nearly cancels. No source consulted states which of the three governed, or whether the question was ever asked.

Whether the near-coincidence of the flap schedule’s pole and the flap actuator’s corner is deliberate. They differ by 1.42 percent. A schedule designed for an aeroplane and an actuator sized for a surface may arrive at the same corner frequency by accident, and this article reports the coincidence and claims nothing about its cause.

The phase a rate-limited actuator contributes. An ideal rate limiter contributes none. A rate-limited servo contributes up to a great deal, and how much depends on the loop around the limiter. This article has the limit and the lag and does not have the loop.

Whether the change in how the acronym is expanded was deliberate. The award record uses the older form and the prime contractor uses the newer one. That the newer form spells the acronym exactly and the older one does not is arithmetic. That anyone noticed is conjecture.

What inlet the aircraft carries. See above.

The frame rate, the computational latency and the actual model-following architecture. The programme has published on all three, in eight conference papers [Cotting, Stephens, Cole, Barricklow and Gray, X-62 VISTA Capabilities and Architecture, AIAA SciTech 2023] [Caraway, Harris and Cotting, VISTA X-62A Model Following Algorithm Overview, AIAA SciTech 2023] [Harris and Caraway, Model Following Control Allocation For The X-62A, AIAA SciTech 2023], and this article cites all eight as registry entries, which establish that they exist, who wrote them and what they cover. It does not quote their contents and does not represent their findings. The registry also records a correction to one of them [Correction to X-62 VISTA Simulation and Autonomy Flight Testing, AIAA SciTech 2023]. The correction is a fact about the record rather than about the aeroplane, and this article reports it without knowing what was corrected.

The phase-delay parameter of the bandwidth criterion. It is how the field expresses what the delay floor costs, and the article declines to use it because a derivation from an unverified statement of its definition gives half what the usual summary of the subject states. A factor of two on the one quantity the criterion would have supplied is not a rounding, and the specification that settles it has not been read.

How widely pilot ratings are averaged in practice. The scale’s definition forbids it. Measuring how often the field does it anyway would require a reading of the literature this survey has not performed.

Whether the aeroplane’s actuators have been changed since 1979. The rate limits used here are those of a production F-16 as NASA modelled it. Its variable-stability modification added a larger-capacity hydraulic pump and lines to accommodate the increased surface motions [F-16 VISTA, MATV and NF-16D, Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, F-16.net], so an aeroplane that has been modified as often as this one may well no longer match them, and no source consulted states the current values. Every frequency in this article’s rate-limit argument inherits that uncertainty, and the direction of the error is not known.

Out of Scope

The aeroplane’s performance is out of scope. Its span, wing area, engine and performance are those of an F-16D and are tabulated in the ordinary reference works [General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon], and The Research Question gives the reason this article does not reproduce them.

The airframe’s earlier research programmes are out of scope as programmes. The thrust-vectoring work of the early nineteen nineties appears only as the history that explains the engines cell, and the high angle of attack literature that work belongs to is listed under The Contemporary Literature without being argued.

The contents of the programme’s own technical papers are out of scope, because this article has not read them. It cites them only to establish that they exist, who wrote them and what they address.

Two quantities the field would expect are out of scope by decision. The bandwidth criterion and its phase-delay parameter are not used, for the reason given under Why the Bandwidth Criterion Is Not Used, and the phase a rate-limited servo contributes is not quoted, because the article has the actuator’s limit and lag and not its loop.

The conduct and outcome of the autonomy engagements are out of scope beyond what the agency, the prime contractor and the trade press state, and the article reports those statements as claims. So is the inlet the aeroplane now carries, which no source this article found addresses.

Conclusion

Of the five orderings between a designation and its aeroplane that this series has met, the X-62A’s is the only one in which the number records a change of purpose rather than an event in the aeroplane’s life. What changed in June 2021 was what the machine was lying to.

For twenty-nine years it lied to pilots. It was an NF-16D, a status prefix meaning that undoing the modifications is beyond practicable or economic limits. It supported the development of the F-22 and of India’s Light Combat Aircraft and evaluated the flight characteristics of aircraft that had not yet flown [X-62A and NF-16D VISTA, GlobalSecurity.org], and it made a Block 30 F-16D behave like an aeroplane with flying qualities bad enough to be dangerous and a safety pilot in the back seat to make that survivable. In June 2021 it became an X-plane, and the thing it lies to now is software.

The mathematics of the lie is exact and older than the aeroplane. One linear system can be made to reproduce another if and only if a projector built from the host’s control effectiveness matrix annihilates the demanded change of dynamics. When it does, the gains are immediate and the imitation is perfect. When it does not, the residual is computable, it is driven by the model’s state, and no feedback gain removes it. The condition is about how many independent directions the host’s controls can reach, and it turns the design of an in-flight simulator into a counting problem.

The count comes out at three per axis and the aeroplane has three per axis. A symmetric horizontal tail, a symmetric trailing-edge flap and a throttle in pitch. A differential tail, an aileron and a rudder in roll and yaw. The throttle is in the list because the speed equation is one of the three and no commanded surface can change axial force independently. This article found no clearer illustration of the argument removing the vehicle. The engine appears in the mathematics as a column and not as propulsion.

And the same argument says what a simulator built round one pitch control could and could not do. It could retune pitch stiffness and pitch damping almost exactly. It could not change the lift curve at all, and the ratio between those two failures, in a representative case, is 1,677. A variable-stability aeroplane without a direct lift control can imitate a different tail and cannot imitate a different wing. The error it would leave does not decay, because the model’s state drives the residual and no gain appears in it to tune.

Solving the same example for its deflections rather than its residual reverses an intuition. The tail is the powerful surface and the flap is the afterthought, and the counting bound says only that the flap must be present. The flap is what runs out. It reaches its published limit at 8.17 degrees of angle of attack where the tail would not reach its own until 30.5, so the envelope of aeroplanes this machine can imitate is set by its weakest control and not by its strongest.

The limits that bind in practice are published and have been since 1979. The symmetric horizontal tail, which has the most travel of any pitch surface the second system commands, reaches its stops only below 2.4 radians per second, below a fighter’s short-period frequency. The differential tail, with a fifth of the travel and the same rate limit, has 4.65 times the bandwidth. The rate limits were set for a fighter, published twelve years before the simulator flew, and inherited unevenly, with the worst of it falling on the axis that does most of the work.

The deepest limit is one-sided and no software will move it. A model-following system drives the host’s surfaces, so every delay in the host lies between the pilot and the simulated response, and the simulation can only add. The machine can make any aeroplane sluggish and cannot make any aeroplane crisp. The floor is at least 49.5 milliseconds from the published actuator lag alone.

And the instrument contains the nonlinearity it was built to study. Rate limiting is a recognised mechanism of pilot-induced oscillation [Pilot-induced oscillation], and the second flight control system drives the same surfaces through what this article takes to be the same rate limits. Above the published corners the host contributes a further nonlinearity, and the student cannot tell it from the model’s. A rate limiter in deep saturation returns a triangular wave whose fundamental falls as the reciprocal of both amplitude and frequency, so the harder the pilot works the less of the aeroplane comes back, the positive feedback the phenomenon runs on.

The delay floor can be priced in the currency the pilot spends. A trained operator adapts until the open loop is an integrator at crossover, which leaves ninety degrees of margin, and a transport delay takes from that linearly. At three radians per second the host consumes 14.23 percent of it and at six it consumes 28.46 percent, before the simulated aeroplane has contributed anything at all.

And a surface the simulation might have wanted turns out to be spoken for. The leading-edge flap is a direct lift device and would be a fourth column in the longitudinal matrix, and the second system does not command it. The published schedule that does command it asks for a lead of two above 3.625 radians per second, and the flap actuator’s corner sits 1.42 percent from the schedule’s pole, so across the band where the simulation lives the surface delivers a gain rise of 0.8 where the schedule asks for 1.8. The lead is not merely reduced. Its sign is reversed.

The answer then comes back on a scale with ten boxes and no metric. The Cooper-Harper rating is ordinal by construction, its only claims about magnitude are the two level boundaries, and a statistic is meaningful on such a scale exactly when it survives every strictly increasing relabelling of the boxes. The median does and the mean does not, so a mean of such ratings asserts something the scale declines to supply. The instrument is far more precise than its readout.

And the loop between the instrument and the readout is closed inside one institution. The school that flies this aeroplane publishes its own flying-qualities textbook chapter by chapter into the defence registry, and Chapter 16 of that textbook is a reprint of the paper that defines the rating scale. The aeroplane produces the stimulus, the student produces the rating, and the definition of the rating is bound into the curriculum the student was taught from. A scale taught as a chapter is a scale applied consistently, and consistency is not the same thing as an interval.

The money says what all of this costs and never once says what the aeroplane is called. 73 transactions and 29,085,924.37 dollars over 11.6 years, 81.2 percent of it to the laboratory that owns the simulation system and 18.8 percent to the prime contractor that owns the airframe and the autonomy interface. The obligation rate steps by a factor of 3.17 at the redesignation and the first payment lands 31 days after it. And in 73 transactions the string X-62A appears 0 times.

That absence is the article’s opening finding and it returns here at the close because it is no clerical curiosity. A designation is a claim about a vehicle’s purpose, made by one part of a government to another. The part that buys the fuel and the spares had no use for the claim, because for its purposes the aeroplane had not changed and the contract line was the same contract line. Both records are right. They are answering different questions.

The register’s sentence is not official wording and the compiler marks it as reconstructed, yet the accounting system corroborates it. Three months after the redesignation the Air Force obligated 799,956.00 dollars under a line that names the Skyborg programme. The two records are maintained for unrelated purposes and they agree. That agreement is the strongest thing this series has been able to say about a reconstructed description since the register stopped being a primary source one article ago.

What the next article inherits is a register that has now been unofficial for two designations running, and the X-63A, allocated 10.2 months after this one, is the third [Parsch, DOD 4120.15-L Addendum].