Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.

1992-170

AlAA 92-0170
A Flight Test Study to Determine
Aircraft Propulsive Efficiency and
Aerodynamic Drag Using Two
Parameter Identification Methods
and Lock's Propeller Model
T. Taylor, G. Bennett, D. Coble,
K. Hall, and P. Bridges
Raspet Flight Research Laboratory
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS

30th Aerospace Sciences

Meeting & Exhibit
January 6-9,1992 / Reno, NV
For permission lo copy or republish, cantacl the American Insfilule of Aeronautlcr and Adronautics
370 L'Enfanl Promenade, S.W., Washlnglon. D.C. 20024

A FLIGHT TEST STUDY TO DETERMINE AIRCRAFT PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY AND

AERODYNAMIC DRAG USING TWO PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION METHODS AND
LOCK'S PROPELLER MODEL

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

Terry Taylor', George BeMet6, Donna Coblet,

Kenneth Hall', Philip Bridges'
Raspet Flight Research Laboratory
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi

Blade Drag Coefficient Constant Term

Blade Drag Coefficient First Order Term
Blade Drag Coefficient Second Order Term
Aircraft Drag Coefficient
Blade Drag Coefficient
Zero Lift Drag Coefficient
Blade Lift Coefficient
Power Coefficient
Total Aircraft Drag Force
Oswald Efficiency Factor
Gradient Search Cost Function
Rate of Climb
Advance Ratio
Number of Propeller Blades
Shaft Power
Thrust Power
Dynamic Pressure of Ambient Air
Shaft Torque
Propeller Radius
wing Planform Area
Combined Thrust of Propeller and Jet Engine
Propeller ThNst from Turboprop Engine
Jet Engine Thrust from Turboprop Engine
True Airspeed of Aircraft
Propeller Total Velocity
Aircraft Weight
Blade Angle of Attack

Two parameter identification methods have been

used to determine aircraft performance parameters of a
twin-engined,turboprop aircraft using steady-stateflight
test data from precision sensors. The first method
employs a simple gradient search technique, while the
second utilizes an extended Kalman filter technique to
process flight test data. Both methods require accurate
measurements of airspeed, altitude, rate of climb, shaft
horsepower, engine RPM, and propeller blade angle.
The extended Kalman filter algorithm was developed to
counter the effects of measurement noise and other
uncertainties on the calculated performance parameters.
The parameters identified by these techniques include
five curye fit coefficients to describe the propeller
thrust along with the Oswald efficiency factor and the
zero lift drag coefficient. Level speed-power and
constant blade angle flight test maneuvers were
performed, and comparisons are made between the
parameter identification methods for both sets of data.
The extended Kalman filter technique converged more
rapidly than the gradient search technique for computer
generated data; however, both methods had
convergence problems in the propeller drag terms using
actual flight test data.

6 - $0

Nomenclature
AR
C

c,
C,

Climb Angle
Ambient Air Density
Blade Angle
8 ab

Wing Aspect Ratio

Propeller Blade Chord
Blade Lift Coefficient Intercept
Blade Drag Coefficient Intercept

Graduate Student
AlAA Student Member
t Director, Raspet Flight Research Laboratory
AIAA Member
Associate Professor, Mississippi State University
AIM Member

Introduction
It has always been difficult to separate thrust and
drag forces acting on a propeller driven aircraft. The
usual flight test method used to determine aircraft drag

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

identification algorithm which incorporated Lock's

propeller model. The results were not clear, but the
data was limited in range. Using the same aircraft,
Bohra and Bridges I' explored the extended Kalman filter
parameter identification algorithm to reduce the
sensitivity of the solutions to model and measurement
errors.
The state variables for both parameter
identificationalgorithmsinclude the curve fit coefficients
of the blade lift and drag polars from Lock's propeller
model along with the Oswald efficiency factor and the
zero lift drag coefficient.
As part of a parameter identification research
project, the performance analysis methods have been
modified to define the propulsive efficiency and drag of
a Rockwell Turbo Commander 690", a hvin-engined,
turboprop aircraft, shown in Figure 1.

is to generate a power required curve for the aircraft.

First, the engine shaft power is measured using
calibration curves, or a torque meter is installed.
Second, airspeed is varied incrementally over the
performance envelope of the aircraft. Next, a propeller
efficiency is assumed using the Hamilton Standard
Method or a propeller chart. Finally, the drag polar
can he defined which cnn be fitted to the parabolic form
to define the shape drag and span efficiency
coefficients.
Bull and Bridges) have developed a method to
identify propeller efficiency and drag coefficients using
a level-flight acceleration or deceleration maneuver.
This performance analysis method cau evaluate
parameters at a speed-power point and requires
relatively simple instrumentation.
Aircraft performance parameter identificationusing
steady-state maneuvers has been studied for several
years at the Raspet Flight Research Laboratory.
Bennett showed that the Newton-Raphson method
could be used to determine aircraft performance
parameters using several steady state measurements
assuming a very simple propeller efficiency model.
Cook continued this work by applying a different
propulsive efficiency model and the Marquardt
BSOLVE parameter identification algorithm.
Difficulties were encountered with both the propeller
model and the algorithm. Next, Sabzehparvar
conducted a study of sailplane performance including
atmospheric vertical motion using the gradient search
parameter identification method with good results. It
was found that the gradient search method was stable
and could determine the drag parameters and
atmospheric motion in the presence of measurement
noise.
As a result of extensive propeller research in the
1930's and 1940's, C.N.H. Lock7,8*9J0
found that a
propeller's thrust and shaft power could be described in
term of the performance of a single blade at seventy
percent radius. Hewes" rediscovered Lock's model for
determining propeller thrust and shaft power. This
method is idally suited for the modelling of the
complex propeller characteristics because it reduces the
complex propeller charts to two curves that can be
f i t t . with five or six coefficients. This propeller
model has the potential to allow the detection of
changes in efficiency caused by changes in the twist
distribution of the propeller, which is impossible with
the usual chart models.
Analysis of flight test data obtained using a Beech
T-34 aircraft was conducted by Sahzehparvar and
Bennett 12'3 using the gradient search parameter

LJ

'

Figure 1. Rockwell Turbo Commander 690 Aircraft

W
The slender nacelles of this aircraft should minimize
nacelle effects on the propeller.
High quality
instrumentation and data acquisition systems were
installed for data collection. In addition, extensive
calibration of the sensors and airdata boom were
conducted to minimize measurement errors. This aspect
of the project is being reported by Chaney, et. al. Is.
All post flight data processing was performed on a
25 megahertz 386 class personal computer equipped with
a 387 math coprocessor and Microsoft@Professional
Development Fortran Version 5.1. The typical fifty
iteration rnn time for both parameter identification
algorithms was approximately twenty minutes for fifty
five data points.
The discussionwhich followssummarizes briefly the
development of an aircraft performance analysis method
using Lock's propeller r d e l and hvo parameter
identification algorithms. More details are given in
Sabzehparvar 12, Taylor 16, B o b I', and Coble I'. The
fundamental assumption made is that all propeller-nacelle
installations will have blade lift and drag polars of
similar shapes; consequently, the measured aircraft
performance data can be processed using a gradient
search or Kalman filter parameter identification
techniqueto determine simultaneously the coefficientsof
v

the blade lift and drag polars and the aircraft drag
coefficients. Lock's single element propeller model is
summarized and verification of the concept is shown.
The aircraft performance model is presented along with
the cost function used to drive the parameter
identificationmethods. Finally, the results of the study
are presented.

and the inverse method for determining a propeller's

blade lift and drag polars given s p e d , power, and blade
angle measurements.
Sabzehparvar I' details the
mathematical development of both methods in a previous
study. A summary of the forces and velocity vectors for
a propeller blade element are given in Figure 2. The
end result of the direct method is two equations for
computing propeller thrust and shaft power, respectively:

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

Theorv

T=0.5p NbcW2Rx(CL,cos$

The theoretical aspects of this research will be

composed of five major parts: a summary of Lock's
propeller model, a verification study of Lock's model,
the aircraft performance d e l , the flight test methods
used for data collection and analysis, and a brief
discussion of both parameter identification techniques.

- C,.,sin$)

(3)

P, =0.5pN,cRxV3cos2V~(Cl,cosp - C,,,Sin$)

vcsinp

(1 +-

COSd )%b

(4)

Lock's Prooeller Model

C.N.H. Lock developed a single element model for

shaft power and thrust that is based upon the concept

that equivalent propeller lit3 and drag polars are
functions of the b&de angle of attack at the seventy
percent radius position. As a result, complicated
propeller performance charts CM be collapsed into two
curves which can be easily fit with simple polynomials.
The simplified model was found to be robust due to the
inclusion of the Goldstein terms to account for
interference due to multiple blades.
Hainesl* conducted an extensive study of the polars
of a wide range of propellers. It was found that the
equivalent blade lift polar exhibited a linear range and
a smooth transition into a stalled region similar to a
wing. Similarly, the equivalent drag polar was found
to be parabolic. It was shown that these polars were
universal for a wide range of blade angles and advance
ratios. The propeller blade polars were shown to be
dependent upon the tip Mach number when the tip
Mach number exceeded 0.8. It was obvious that the
propeller blade polars exhibited characteristics similar
to that of an aircraft; thus, the polars could be fitted
with low order polynomials, which would be suitable
for the performance model of a propeller driven
aircraft. For this study, the blade lift and drag polars
were written in the form:
CL,b= C, + C,a,
and
(1)
'Qb

c, + C p ,

+ C,a,

I*

12.d

Figure 2. Summary of Force and Velocity Vectors

for a Propeller Blade Element
Verification of Lock's Prooeller Model
A verification study was made of the ability of
Lock's Method to accurately describe the performance
characteristics of a propeller over a wide range of flight
conditions. Manufacturer's performance data l9 was
obtained from the Hartzell Propeller Company for the
Turbo Commander's propellers, and a propeller
performance chart was created from the raw data. This
data was automated in a computer program for the
purpose of predicting the propeller's blade angle and
efficiency for a given flight condition. Five blade angles
were chosen for this study: 20". 25". 30", 35", and
40". The flight conditions corresponding to these blade
angles were recorded for later use in the flight test
program. Using Lock's inverse method, blade lift and
drag polars were generated for the Turbo Commander's
Hartzell Propellers in Figures 3 & 4, respectively. After
making a linear least squares fit of the lift polar and a
parabolic least squares fit of the drag polar, the
following values were found for the coefficients C,

(2)

Lock's propeller model consists of two parts: the

direct method for determining propeller thrust and shaft
power given a propeller's blade lift and drag polars,
W

through C, of equations (1) and (2):

C,

performance data with the efficiencies calculated from

the curve fit coefficients of the blade lift and drag
polars. As seen in Figure 5, Lock's propeller model is
able to closely predict propeller performance pameters
over a wide range of advance ratios and blade angles.
These curve fit coefficients will be used as initial
gue.s.m for the state. variables in the parameter
identification algorithms.

0.560703

C, = 0.103223
C, = 0.009942

c, = 0.002204

(Table 1)

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

C, = 0.001327

BuIlE ANcm

[.I " u m m

*I 702 RU)M

"

j 8 = 3s

M V A N C E RATIO [I]
~
_
_
_
Figure 5. Comparison of Predicted and Calculated
Propeller Efficiencies for 690 Propellers.

Figure 6. Summary of Form Acting on an Aircraft

in the Vertical Plane.
Figure 4. Blade Drag Polar for HartzeIl Propellers
of Turbo Commander 690 Aircraft Generated Using
Lock's Inverse Method

Aircraft Performance Model

The mathematical model chosen to describe the
aircraft in flight was the rate of climb equation, hecause
it contains both propeller thrust and aircraft drag.
Summing forces along the aircraft's X and Z axes in
Figure 6 gives the following equations of motion:

Sabzehparvar observed that the blade lift polar exhibited

nonlinear range for the propeller of his research;
however, as seen in Figure 3, the 690 propeller lift
polar is linear for the range of advance ratios and blade
angles encountered by the 690 aircraR in flight.
In order to verify the ability of Lock's methods to
accurately describe the performance of a propeller, a
check was made of the model by comparing predicted
propeller efficiencies from the manufacturer's
a

L-w,.

(6)

From geometry and making use of the small angle

approximation for y, the following relationship is
observed:
Y

to three minutes), and that no atmospheric phenamena

were encountered.
Data Awuisition Svstem.
Both parameter
Assuming steady flight and manipulating equations (Z),
identification techniques require accurate measurements
(S), and (6) results in the following:
of pressure altitude, airspeed, rate of climb, engine
RPM,shaft horsepower, and blade angle. The Turbo
Commander was equipped with a state+f-the-art data
acquisition system including precision Rosemount
where T is the combined thrust of the propeller and the pressure transducers and other sensors in a wing
mounted boom to minimize measurement errors. An
jet engine. The final aircraft performance model was
AT-class personal computer equipped with Metrabyte 16
h =
+ w,
Tj - D ] v ,
bit AID cards was used to acquire the sensor data, and
(9)
a Sun 386i workstation was installed to conduct the data
analysis and to display the results. The computers are
where T, contains the propeller curve fit coefficients, networked for data transfer and scan at an average rate
(equation (3) combined with (Z)), and D, total aircraft of 2.047 scanslsecond. Extensive calibrations and indrag, contains CD,oand e. Tj is the jet engine thrust of flight checkouts were performed on this system before
the Garrett turboprop engines installed on the 690 the data collection phase began. Spot checks of the
aircraft. This thrust was taken Erom a net thrust chart system were performed before each flight with a Mensor
given in the Garrett Performance Specification manual quartz cell manometer.
The boom airspeed and
ao for these engines. Another important parameter altimeter were calibrated using a tower flyby method to
mentioned earlier is the propeller efficiency, vp , which accuracies of
1.5 knots and f 20 feet worst case,
depending upon the ambient air temperature. The
is defined:
horsepower measurements were calibrated to an
accuracy of It 5 hp, and the blade angle measurements
were accurate to f 0.5 degree. Also, the RPM
where the thrust and shaft horsepower are computed measurements were accurate to 1 RPM. Both engines
using equations (3) and (4).
were instrumented and their data recorded; however, the
Assuming a parabolic drag polar, the aircraft drag right engine measurements were consistently better than
the left and consequently, used for both engines.
coefficient is defined:
Constant Blade Anale Test Points. The constant
propeller blade angle test points were attempted in an
effort to cover more of the performance envelope in
fewer flights than would be required by normal level
and total aircraft drag, D, can be written:
speed-power, flight testing. The speeds and power
D = C,,,qS +
w:
(12)
settings necessary for these points were determined by
rAReqS
using the computer automated propeller chart, a desired
altitude and blade angle, and an assumed parasite drag
coefficient and span efficiency. The assumed quantities
were estimated from data given on similar aircraft. A
FIieht Test Method
The steady-statedata taken in this research involved set of test points was generated by this computer
test points of two types: level flight, speed-power program for a given altitude and blade angle to fully
points for four altitudes (5,000 ft, 10,000 ft, 15,OOO ft, exercise the propeller over its performance envelope and
and 20,000 ft) and constant propeller blade angle points to determine its flight characteristics. Given an altitude
for four blade angles (ZOO, 25", 30",and 35"). A and a scheduled horsepower chart from the Turbo
large body of data was taken for these conditions which Commander flight manual 'I, the computer program
allowed for a few repeat points. All of the flights were defined a performance envelope on the propeller chart.
flown in the early morning hours to avoid thermals and Horsepower was incremented evenly from stall to the
atmospheric waves. The usual procedure for data maximum scheduled horsepower available, while the
collection was to select a test point and maintain these corresponding airspeed was iterated for the desired blade
flight conditions long enough to ensure that the phugoid angles. Two altitudes were chosen for these test points,
mode of the aircraft had been damped sufficiently, (two 5,OOOand 20,000 feet. A summary of the predicted and

h = vsin7

v7 .

(7)

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

["

-W

test data in flight. Since most of the analysis in this

project was performed in a post-flight mode, a second
program was written to make a permanent, easy-toanalyze w o r d of all sensor data for each data run.
Each sensor's output was plotted in engineering units
versus scnn for each test point.
In order to check the accuracy of the rate of climb
sensor, a derivative was calculated for each scan of the
altitude data for comparison with the altitude rate
sensor's output. First, the scan data was converted to
time by dividing the scan number by the averaged scan
rate of the data acquisition system, approximately 2.047
scanslsecond. Next, assuming a second order curve
would adequately fit the altitude derivative, a third order
curve was fit through a user specified number of scaos
on either side of the current altitude scan using a least
squares algorithm. In Figure 8 , this check proved that
the altitude rate signal was accurate during testing.
After seeing large excursions in some of the early
rate of climb data, an additional derivative term was
calculated to determine whether the fluctuations were
due to aircraft dynamics or to atmospheric phenomena.
Assuming that the motion was due to dynamics,
Equations (5) and (7) were combined and rearranged to
include the acceleration dVldt:

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

measured data points is given in Figure 7 in terms of

advance ratio (nondimensional airspeed) and power
coefficient (nondimensional power).

Figure 7. Summary of Predicted and Measured

Steady-State Data Points from Turbo Commander
Flight Tests.
Level Fliqht Test Points. For the level flight test
points, at a given altitude, airspeed was incrementally
varied from stall to the maximum possible speed of the
aircraft. Data was also taken with the gear and flaps
down; however, this data was not included in the
preseot discussion.
Sensitivity Analvsis. A sensitivity analysis was
performed on several of the key parameters in this
model using the computer automated propeller chart and
prediction program. The independent parameters,
airspeed and horsepower setting, were varied f 10%to
see their effects on the rate of climb and propeller blade
angle. The mast important conclusion made from this
study was that horsepower setting has a much greater
effect on both rate of climb and blade angle than does
airspeed. This conclusion had been suspected before
this analysis based on events while flight testing the
aircraft. For the constant blade angle test points, the
pilot would set up close to the target airspeed above or
below the desired altitude, depending on whether the
point was a climb or descent. There, he would set the
target horsepower for the point and begin the climb or
descent adjusting the airsped only. After several
minutes on the desired conditions, the data acquisition
system was turned on for approximately one minute.
Data Reduction and Averaging Program. Two
computer programs were developed to handle data
reduction and analysis for the 690 data acquisition
system. The first, developed by Parkerp, has a near
real time capability of displaying several types of flight

8 dt

(Ut

The left side of Equation (13) was calculated for each

scan using the same algorithm outlined for the altitude
derivative. If this term was constant, it could be
extracted from the altitude rate data in the aircraft
performance model. If this term was not constant,
atmospheric phenomena were probably the cause of the
fluctuations. A good example of aircraft dynamics is
given in Figure 8 .

and different orders of magnitude for state variables, and

its ability to avoid saddlepoints. The scaled gradient
method nondimensionalizes the state variables and makea
them orthogonal. According to Wilde, "no matter what
scales are chosen, ascent metbods will eventually find
the peak, and if the scales are selected wisely,
convergence can be rapid." The choice of scales for this
application will be discussed later.
The gradient technique in this application determines
the state variables by minimizing the following cost
function:

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

Figure 8. Sample Airspeed and Altitude Rate Sean

Data from 690 Data Acquisition System with
Calculated Derivatives from Automated Data
Reduction Program.

Once the data and derivatives had been calculated

and plotted for each data run, sections of steady-state
data were selected for averaging. These selections
were based on examining the airspeed, horsepower, and
most importantly, the rate of climb scan histories of
each data run. If the measured rate of climb and the
Dv/dt acceleration term coincided for a section of data,
the corresponding scans were averaged and standard
deviations calculated by a data averaging subroutine.
The unsteady data will be examined in later research.
parameter Identification Methods
The two parameter identificationalgorithm used in
this research are briefly described in the following
section. A detailed description and mathematical
development are available in Taylor16 and Sabzehparvar
I' for the gradient search technique and in Coble
and
Bohra" for the extended Kalman filter technique. Both
methods use Lock's propeller model to calculate the
propeller thrust coefficients and the rate. of climb
equation to determine the parasite drag coefficient and
the span efficiency. Initial guesses for the propeller
thrust coefficients were obtained from the curve fits of
Figures 2 & 3, and initial guesses for C,,,,and e were
the =me used in the constant blade angle prediction
program.
Gradient Search Parameter Identification. A scaled
gradient search method described by Wilden was used
to solve a set of nonlinear equations describing an
aircraft in the vertical plane using steady-state flight test
data. The gradient search technique was chosen for its
stable convergence, its tolerance of p r initial guesses

subscripts represent calculated quantities- from the

computer model, (Jm subscripts represent measured
quantities from the data acquisition system, and Wk and
W,, are weighting factors for the two terms.
The cost function, f, is a scalar function of seven
state variables defined:
f - f ( C I , C * ,.... C,)
(15)
The gradient vector in Cartesian space is defined:

where i,, &,..., and I, are independent unit vectors for

each variable,
XI =

Cl
SI

and s, are the scale factors for each parameter.

The unit vector is given by

and the cosino directions are denoted by

m, =

for j = 1, 2,
variable:

dx,
{dx: + dx: + ... + dx:

... , 7.

(19)

Define the changes in each state

A C l = s l A x l = s,m,Al

(20)

where AI is the gradient search step size in Cartesiau

space. For minimization, the parameter change vector
must be parallel to and opposite to the gradient vector

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

Further substitutions and manipulations yield the

(22)
The quantitiy af, I aCi is the first partial derivative
evaluated at C, using a central difference formula. The
new values of each parameter are computed
Cl = Cp + AC,

(a)

and the process continues until af/al approaches zero.

After preliminary NUS were made with some of the
best steady-state flight test data, several improvements
were included in the aircraft d e l and gradient
algorithm. The jet engine thrust from the turboprop
engine was read from a net thrust chart in the engine
manual for each flight condition. This term accounted
for as much as 16 96 of the engine thrust at low altitudes
and &speeds. This term was also included in the
extended Kalman filter aircraft model. Sabmhparvar
calculated step size by dividing the nominal cost
function for each iteration by nine; however, for this
application, a better step size selector was needed. The
new step size was determined by the perfonnance of the
cost function. If the nominal cost function decreased
over the step, the same step was used; on the other
hand, if the cost function increased over the step, the
current step size was cut in half. This modification
dramatically improved the overall convergence of the
technique.

nonstationary error sources when their statistical

behavior is known.
It is not within the wpe of this paper to provide a
detailed derivation of the extended Kalman filter, but a
few of the equations used will be presenied here. An
excellent reference of the various forms of the Kalman
filter and their applications is Applied Optimal
Estimation by Gelb.
The first step is to determine the measurement
vectors &, and the associated measurement matrix B
that relate the vector & to the state vector X. The next
step is to BSG~SS the likely error or noise in the
measurement with the vector
and its covariance
matrix & that is assumed to be a scalar quantity.
Once the predetermined values are assigned, a
forecast of the state vector is made based on the
experimental test of a similar system. Table 1 shows
these values. The initial variance of the state vector
represented by
is found by squaring a portion of
the forecasted state vector and put into a diagonal
matrix. For example:
pK(-)(l.l) = ( U C , ) 2 .
(W

\c/

u-)

The covariance matrix for the state equations is Q and is

added to the matrix in the following manner:
(29
P,fl,l) = Pk(l,l) + Q(1,l) .

The torque calculated from the flight test data is

contaminated by measurement noise,

x:

Next, &, the covariance matrix of the measurement

error is computed by taking the partial derivative of the
torque with respect to the state estimates:

The gain matrix, 5,is evaluated from the forecast and

measurement covariance matrices and is as follows:

Extended Kalman Filter Parameter Identificatioc.

The Kalman filter is an optimal recursive technique
based on steady and non-steady state space aud time
domain problems. The extended Kalman filter was
chosen to continue the effort that began with the
Gradient Search method because it is ideally suited for
the estimation of typical navigational system errors.
These errors basically propagate in a linear m e r and
linear combinations of the mors can he detected from
external measurements. Also, the exteuded Kalman
filter is a time-vatying filter that can accommodate

K,

P,(-)HZ&(-N

128)

H k ( ~ ( - ) ) P ~ ( - ) H ~ ( ~ +R,
( - ) )
Using the gain matrix, the bRst estimate is computed
next. The state vector is put through the measurement
matrix
to form a forecast of the measurement.
Subtracted from the original measurement is the forecast
that yields a correcting factor. The correcting factor
passes through a forward gain of & to produce an
v

improved estimate of X. This is shown in the following

equation:
(29)
&(+)=
+ K k [ 3 - 5(&(-))1

&(-)

lift drag coefficient and the W a l d efficiency factor of

0.025 and 0.72, "pectively. All the parameters were

perturbed simultaneously by 596, 10% , 20 96, and 50 96

of their exact values, and the corresponding itemtion

histories were recorded.
Gradient Search Results. The gradient search
method requires a set of scale factors for each
parameter. These scale factors were determined by trial
and error; the first scale factors used were the exact
values of the parameters themselves. In order to
increase the amount of change in a certain parameter,
the d e factor was increased in magnitude. After
reexamining the equations, this observation seem
logical. The slow convergence near the exact value of
the solution may be improved by adjusting the step size
and the scale factor for a parameter.
Another
improvement for the algorithm would be to limit the
magnitude of the change for a parameter over one step.
Both of these recommendations will he explored in
further research. Another ohsewation made while
running the benchmark cases was that a different set of
scale factors is needed to increase the convergence of the
level flight computer generated data, particularly for the
blade lift coefficient state variables and the drag state
variables. The implicationsof these observations are.not
fully understood at present but will he closely examined
later.
For the level flight generated data, the best
convergence was obtained by the scale factors in Table

Finally, the variance of this optimum estimate is

computed from the forecast and measurement variances
using the following error covariance matrix:

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

PJ+) = [I

- KP&(-))IP~(-)

(30)

The important factors for successful parameter

identification using this extended Kalman filter are an
adequate flight test program, accurate and sufficient
instrumentationto measure the performance parameters
of the aircraft, a reasonable mathematical model of the
system, and Lock's propeller model.
For this
application, the approach taken was to incorporate two
extended Kalman filter algorithms consecutively.
The first extended Kalman filter incorporates a
mathematical model formed from the manufacturer's
propeller performance data to represent the nondimensional C, and C, curves with the coefficients C,,
q,q,C,, and C,. Table 1 shows these coefficients.
These are the unknown parameters that are extracted
from flight test data. The true velocity, blade angle,
and RF'M measp+ from flight tests and the estimated
coefficients C, &ugh C, produce an estimate for the
torque that is analytically computed using Lock's
propeller model. The difference between the measured
torque from flight tests and the estimated torque found
by the filter is what drives the first extended Kalman
filter.
The second extended Kalman filter takes the final
estimates of C, through C, from the first filter and
consolidates them with a model of the rate of climb.
The difference between the measured rate of climb and
the estimated rate of climb is what forces the second
extended Kalman filter to converge. This produces the
estimates for the lift drag coefficient and the Oswald
efficiency factor.

2.
s, = 0.700

s, = 0.300
s, = 0.050

s,

0.020

(Table 2)

s, = 0.010
s, = 0.030
s, = 1.600

Figure 9 shows the response of the gradient search cost

function to error in the initial guesses. The runs were
limited to fifty iterations, and convergence was slow.
For the constant blade angle generated data, the scale
factors in Table 3 provided the best overall convergence:

Discussion of Results
Coawuter Generated Data
In order to determine the performance
characteristics of both parameter identification
techniques, a set of data was generated for both level
flight conditions and constant blade angle conditions
using a known set of parameters. A computer program
was written to generate data similar to the target flight
conditions using the initial guesses for the propeller
curve fit coefficients and assumed values for the zero

SI

0.600

s, = 0.103

s, = 0.043
s, = 0.019
s, = 0.019
s, = 0.030

s, = 0.700.

L.,
S

(Table 3)

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

Similarly, the constant blade angle generated data was

run for fifty iterations with the same errors in initial
guesses, and the cost function plotted in Figure IO.
Figures 11 and 12 show the iteration histories of the
two drag state variables, C, and e. The convergence
for this data was much more rapid than the level flight
generated data. This difference in convergence rates
and final estimates can probably be attributed to the
ability of constant blade angle data to fully exercise a
propeller over its flight regime. The range of propeller
efficiencies encountered with this constant blade angle
generated data is shown in Figure 14. Level flight only
exposes the propeller to a relatively narrow band of the
propeller's operating envelope as seen in Figure 13.

,.m,

4
PERTURBATION IN COEFFICIENTS
2OX PERTURBATION IN COEFFICIENTS
u 10% PEENRBATION IN CODnClENTS
W 6): PERTURBATION IN COEfWClENTS
- EXACT VALUE OF COEFFICIENT
-SO%

Figure 11. Gradient Search Iteration History of

Oswald Efficiency Factor Using Computer Generated
Constant Blade Angle Flight Test Data.

w 50% PERTURBATION IN COEFFICIENTS

_D 20% PeRTURBATION IN COEFFICIENTS
10% PERNRBATIOH IN COEFFIClENTS
M+M 6% PERTURBATION IN COETFICIENTS
EXACT VALUE OF COEFFICIENT
__L

v
Figure 9. Gradient Search Cast Function Iteration
History Using Computer Generated Level Flight Test
Data.

Figure 10. Gradient Search Cost Function Iteration

History Using Computer Generated Constant Blade
Angle Flight Test Data.

ITClUTIONS

Figure 12. Gradient Search Iteration History of Zem

Lift Drag Coefllcient Using Computer Generated
Constant Blade Angle Flight Test Data.

Figure 13. Comparison of Predicted and Calculated

Propeller Efficiencies of Computer Generated Level
Flight Test Data Using Gradient Search Parameter
Identification.
10

Also, in Figures 13 and 14, a predicted propeller

efficiency was obtained from the automated propeller
chart and plotted for comparison with the gradient
search estimates. The initial guesses for these runs
were perturbed +50% from their exact values, and the
calculated propeller efficiencies are plotted for the first
and last iteration of the gradient search.
Sabzehpawat's final cost function contained a
redundant term, shaft power, to increase the
convergence rate and make the process more stable. A
study was made to determine if the rate of climb term
could be used alone as the gradient search cost
function. In the case of the level flight computer
generated data, the coefficients when perturbed stayed
at their perturbed values and did not show any signs of
converging. With the constant blade angle generated
data, the coefficients converged, but much more slowly
than before. This result again shows the robustness of
the constant blade angle method of flight testing. Also,
a different set of scale factors may be necessary to
sped convergence. These possibilities, along wilh an
adaptive scale factor algorithm, will be explored in
subsequent research.

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

rapidly and did not deviate ooce they reached steadystate. The other parameters, which describe the
propeller lift and drag, behaved in a similar manner.
Figures 17 and 18 show the convergence of the propeller
efficiencies for the level flight and constant blade angle
cases. By the fiftieth iteration both cases had converged
to the correct values.
It was found that the Q matrix affected the speed
that the data converged; therefore, the Q matrix was
modified by trial and error to provide the best
convergence for all the parameters. This technique is
often referred to 8s "tuning the filter". The modification
of the Q matrix was necessary for the computer
generated data and the actual flight test data.

5% PEF3URBAnON IN COEFFICIENTS
10% PERTURBATION IN COEFFICIENT3
20% PERTURBATION IN COEFFICIKNTS
u 50% PERNRBATION IN COEFiIClXNTS
EXACT VALUE OF COEFFICIENT

ITERATION NUYBER

Figure 15. Extended Kalman Filter Iteration History

of Oswald ElXciency Factor Using Computer
Generated Level Flight Test Data.

PDRIURBITION IN COOFICIENTS
10% PERNRBATION IN COEFFlClENn
20% PERTURBATION IN COEFrlClENtS
509 PRRTURBAnON IN COFPFIO?MT
FUCT vaue OF COEFFICIENT

.
I5%
I

**1*1

Figure 14. Comparison of Predicted aud Calculated

Propeller Efficiencifs of Computer Generated
Constant Blade Angle Flight Test Data Using
Gradient Search Parameter Identifieation.
r

- E
Results. The initial
conditions chosen for the extended Kalman filter were
the values that were used to generate the computer data.
These values were then perturbed by 5 % . 1096, 20%,
and SO% of their exact values to test the convergence
ability of the filter. Each of the data points was passed
through the filter fifty times lo produce Figures 15
through 18.
Figures 15 and 16 show that the Oswald efficiency
factor and the zero lift drag coefficient converged very

Figure 16. Extended Kalman Filter Iteration History

of Zero Lift Drag Coefficient Using Computer
Generated Level Flight Test Data.

search iteration histories for three of the key state

variables: the propeller lift polar slope (CJ,the Oswald
efficiency factor, and the zero lift drag coefficient.
Although these coefficients seemed to show signs of
convergence, the propeller drag fit coefficients showed
no signs of approaching a stable value. The model is
designed to collapse data from all test conditions;
however, each set of data separated by altitude. The
implicationsof these findings are not hlly understood at
this time, but this problem will be addressed in
subsequent research.

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

Figure 17. Comparison of Predicted and Calculated

Propeller Efficiencies of Computer Generated Level
Flight Test Data Using Extended Kalman Filter
Parameter Identification.

_
.
I

6.OW
10 000

FP DATA
IS DATA

16:OOO FT DATA
b4U4 20.000 IS DATA
*u. ALTIWDES COYDINED

Figure 19. Gradient Search Cost Function Iteration

History for Steady-State Level Flight Test Data.

ADVANCE EAT10 [I]

Figure 18. Comparison of Predicted and Calculated

Propeller Efficiencies of Computer Generated
Comtant Blade Angle flight Test Data Using
Extended Kalman Filter Parameter Identification.
FIieht Test Data
Both parameter identification techniques were run
with the same steady state flight test data in the same
manner. For the level flight test points, each altitude
was run separately, and then all altitudes were run
together for fifty iterations. Similarly, the data for each
target blade angle way tun separately, and then all blade
angles were run together. Common plots for key
parameters will be shown for each technique.
Gradient Search Results. Using the same scale
factors from the computer generated data runs and the
initial guesses from Table I, the level flight test data
were run. The cost function iteration history is given
in Figure 19. Figures 20, 21, and 22 give the gradient

Figure 20. Gradient Search Iteration History of

Oswald Efficiency Factor for Steady-State Level
Flight Test Data.
The constant blade angle data was also run but with
even less overall convergence. The gradient search cost
function for the constant blade angle flight test data sets
is given in Figure 23. Of the two types of flight test
data, the level flight data produced the best overall
results, which contradicts the findings of the
benchmarking study.

12

jow

Lorn

Extended Kalman Filter Results. The same initial

guesses were made for the actual flight test data as were
made for the computer generated data. The only
difference was that the values were not perturbed. The
propeller lift coefticients, C, and q, converged
relatively well and C, for level flight is shown in Figure
24. On the other hand the propeller drag coefficients,
C, through C,, continued to change with no obvious
pattern. The affects of the nonconverging propeller
drag coefficients were carried through to the Oswald
efficiency factor, C, and the zero lift drag coefficient,
C,. The level flight data produced the best results for
C, and C, and are shown in Figures 25 and 26. The
gradient search method showed similar characteristics.

6000 Fp DATA
1O:OOO IT DATA
1S.000 IT DATA
M+W 20 ooo
DATA
Uf. ALTITUDES COMBINED
_D

rr

Ejm,
80,

@*
O

L 2 0

om0

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

WEBATIONS

0.beo 5.000
W 10.000

PI

DATA

IT DATA
15.000 FT DATA
UIIO 20.000 IT DATA
C

A I L UTITUDES COMBINED

0.110

Figure 24. Extended ffilman Filter Iteration History

of Parameter C, for Steady-State Levd Flight Test

Figure 22. Gradient Search Iteration History of

Parameter C, for Steady-State Level Flight Test
Data.

Data.

5,000 IT DATA
10 WO IT DATA
t 5 ' W IT DATA
M+MZO'OW IT DATA
ALTITUDL3 COMBINED

_D

3 a.s*

4
P

0.w

_D

d.

Figure 25. Extended Kalman Filter Iteration History

of Oswsld Efficiency Factor for SteadyState Level
Flight Test Data.

Figure 23. Gradient Search Cost Function History

for Steady-State Constant Blade Angle Flight Test
Data.

13

5 . W FI DATA
1 O . W FI DATA
1 5 . W T I DATA
t U W 20 W R DATA
UnlVDCs COMBWED

04eW

Ad

0.-

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

munow

Figure 26.
Extenended Kalman Filter Iteration
History of Zem Lift Drag CWrrcient for SteadyState Level Fliiht Test Data.
It is not clear why the propeller drag coefficients
did not converge after fifty iterations since the computer
generated test case produced good results. One
explanation is that there was a bias in the data that was
not detected. Also the manufacturer's values of jetengine thrust were used without being experimentally
confirmed. An inadvertent error during programming
proved that the weight plays a big role in the
convergence of the Oswald efficiency factor and the lift
drag coefficient. Since the weight was taken to be a
constant value, this could be another source of error.
In addition, the engines were assumed identical and not
modeled separately. Lastly, there may be additional
terms that were not taken into account in this model.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Two parameter identification techniques have been
developed to extract and predict aircraft performance
characteristics from steady state flight test data. Both
methods use Lock's propeller model to determine
propeller thrust. which has been proven as an accurate
model with manufacturer's propeller performance data.
The following conclusions and recommendations are
made after careful evaluation of this research.
1. A single element propeller model has the capability
of accurately describing propeller performance over a
wide range of operating conditions with two low order
curve fits.
2. A robust flight test method that fully exercises the
propeller flight envelope was attempted as an alternative
to usual level speed-power maneuvers.
Some
difficulties encountered with this method were that a
skilled pilot and good atmospheric conditions are
necessary to obtain steady-state flight test data.

3. The two parameter identificationalgorithms aced for

this analysis were proven using computer generated
flight test data. Further research will be conducted into
learning the convergence characteristics of each method
for both types of flight test data.
4. The aircrafi performance model could be improved
in several ways. Some possibilities include modelling
each engine sepantely, experimentally confirming the
thrust contribution of the jet engine, and looking for a
data bias in the power measurements.
5. For the gradient search technique, a second order
gradient method could improve convergence when the
parameters are close to their true values. In addition, an
adaptive scale factor algorithm could also be
implemented to help Speea the convergence of each
parameter.
6. Both parameter identificationtechniquesexperienced
difficulties when processing the measured flight test data
of both types. The propeller lifi variables showed the
most signs of convergence, while the propeller drag
variables exhibited no obvious pattern. These findings
are not fully understood at this time, but will be closely
examined in later reseerch.

References

I. Peterson, F. S . Aircraft and Engine Pefonnance,

Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland,
1958.
2. Anon. Hamilton Standard Method of Propeller

Pofonnance Calculation, Hamilton Standard Division

Of United Aircraft Corp., East Hartford, CT, 1941.
3. Bull, G. and Bridges, P. D. 'Final Repork
Investigation of Flight Test Methods for Measuring
Performance of General Aviation Aircraft'. Journal
of Aircraft. April, 1984.
4. Bennett, W . An Unpublished Memorandum of a
Propukiw Eficiency Model. Department of
Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University,
April, 1915.
5. Cook, J. D. Performance Parameter Identi@cation
Using Steady Stae Flight Test Data, M.S. Thesis,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi
State University, 1980.
6. Sabzehparvar, M.A Numerical Method for
Analyzing Perfonance Flighf Test Data, M.S.Thesis,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi
State University, May, 1982.
7. Lock, C. N. H. 'A Graphical Method of
Calculating the Performance of an Airscrew", British
A.R.C. Memoranda 1675, 1935.

'd

Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on October 23, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-170

L/

E. Lock, C. N. H. 'Application of Goldstein's

Theory to the Fmtical Design of Airscrews", British
A.R.C. Repon and Munoranah 1377, 1930.
9. Lock, C. N. H. "Tables for Use in M Improved
Method of Airscrew Strip Theory Calculation",
British A.R.C. Repon and Memoranda 1674, 1934.
10. Lock, C. N. H. "A Graphid Method of
Calculating the Performance of M Airscrew', British
A.R.C. Repon and Memoranah 1849, 1938.
11. Hewes, D. E. and Bennett, A. G. "Private
Discussion on Propeller Modeling Employing Lock's
Method", NASA Langley Research Center, 1981.
12. Sabmhpnrvar, M.Determination of Aerodynamic
and Propulsion Parameters Using S t e 4 State Data,
PkD. Dissertation, Department of Aerospace
BngineeriOg, Mississippi State University, 1984.
13. Sabzehparvar, M.and Bennett, G. Determination
of Aircraji Propulsive Eficiency and Drag Using
Steady State Measurements and Lonk's Propeller
Model,AIAA Paper 84-2500, October, 1984.
14. Bohra, N. G. Flight Tesf and Simulation
Experience in Aircraji Propulsive and Aerodynamic
Parameter Idenrification Using Enended Kalman
Filter Technique, M.S. Thesis, Department of
Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University,
May. 1986.
15. Chaney, et. al. Development of Q Multicomputer
In-Flight Data Acquisition and Analysis System of
General Aviation Aircraji, AIAA Paper 92-1037 to be
presented at AIAA Design Conference, Feb, 1992.
16. Taylor, T. L. A Flight Tesf Study to Dnermine
Aerodynamic Drag and Propulsive Eficiency Using a
Gradient Search Parameter lakntificarion Technique
and Lock's Propeller Model. M.S. Thesis to be
published, Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Mississippi State Universily, May, 1992.
17. Coble, D. L. A Flight Test Study to Determine
Aerodynamic Drag and Propulsive Eficiency Using a
Extended Kalman Filter Parameter Identifcation
Technique and Lock's Propeller Model. M.S. Thesis
to be. published, Department of Aerospace
Engineering, Mississippi State University, May,
1992.
18. Haines, A. B. "A Comparison of Aerofoil Data

for use in Single Radius Propeller Calculations",

British A.R.C. Report and Memoranda 2188, 1947.
19. Anon. Poformance Chart for Propeller Model
HC-B31iV-sFLLT10673B. Hartzell Prapeller, Inc.,
Piqua, Ohio, April, 1991.
20. Bmdys, E. L. Poformann Specification: Civil
Aircray? Turboprop Engine. MResearch Model
W

TPE331-5. Garrett AIResearch Manufacturing

Company of America, Pbwnix, Arizona, 1972.
21. Anon. GulfslreMt Aerospace Commander 690
Series Pilot Training Manual. FlightSafety
International, Inc., Flushing, New York, 1984.
22. Parker, G. H. Development of a Graphical Data
Di.pplay Program. M.S.Thesis, Department of
Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University,
December, 1989.
23. Wilde, D. J. Optimum Seeking Methoa!v, PrenticeHall, 1964.
24. Gelb, A. E. Applied Optimal Estimation.
Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1974.