AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference AIAA 2009-5692

10 - 13 August 2009, Chicago, Illinois

Aerodynamic Hinge Moment Coefficient Estimation

Using Automatic Fly-By-Wire Control Inputs

M. Mulder,∗ B. Lubbers,† P.M.T. Zaal,‡ M. M. van Paassen,§ and J. A. Mulder¶

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

This paper describes the modeling and parameter estimation of the aileron and elevator
flight control system of TU Delft’s Cessna Citation II laboratory aircraft. The flight test
data originate from maneuvers performed autonomously with a custom-designed experi-
mental fly-by-wire system. The identification of the aerodynamic hinge moment coefficients
will be of special interest, as these hinge moments greatly affect the in-flight performance
of the flight control system. First, the elevator and aileron flight control system models
will be presented, introducing the main parameters that need to be determined. Most
of the parameters reflect the mechanical properties and can be obtained through some
cleverly-designed ground tests, which are discussed next. The hinge moment coefficients
can only be determined through flight tests. The paper continues with a description of the
optimal input signals used to generate flight data for the parameter estimation procedure.
The flight test setup will be introduced briefly, after which the results of the hinge moment
coefficient parameter estimation are summarized. Finally, the validity of the resulting flight
control system models for elevator and aileron are shown.

I. Introduction
Currently, the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering is performing research
to develop a method to objectively and quantifiably assess the fidelity of flight simulators by taking a
cybernetic approach.1–4 This approach entails the identification of pilot control behavior in real flight and
in the simulator. By modeling the differences in control behavior, an objective measure for simulator fidelity
can be determined. The project employs two facilities, the Cessna Citation II laboratory aircraft (Figure 1)
and the SIMONA Research Simulator (SRS).
Recently, for the purpose of this project, a fly-by-wire (FBW) system
was installed into the laboratory aircraft. As this FBW system uses the
existing autopilot of the aircraft, the current flight control system could
remain unaltered.5 With the fly-by-wire system it becomes possible to
control the automatic flight control system with an experimental com-
puter, which can use pilot inputs from a sidestick in the cockpit. The
fly-by-wire computer, however, can also use pre-defined input signals to
fly maneuvers for purposes of system identification.
As found in previous research, the differences in pilot control behavior Figure 1. The Cessna Citation II
for different conditions are often very small.6–9 To isolate the differences laboratory aircraft PH-LAB.
in control behavior caused by a reduced simulator fidelity – caused by
∗ Professor, Control and Simulation Division, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Kluyverweg

1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands. Senior Member AiAA. E-mail: m.mulder@tudelft.nl.

† MSc student, Control and Simulation Division, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Kluyver-

weg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: b.lubbers@gmail.com

‡ PhD candidate, Control and Simulation Division, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology.

Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: p.m.t.zaal@tudelft.nl

§ Associate professor, Control and Simulation Division, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology.

Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands. Member AiAA. E-mail: m.m.vanpaassen@tudelft.nl.

¶ Professor, Control and Simulation Division, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Kluyverweg

1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands. Member AiAA. E-mail: j.a.mulder@tudelft.nl.

1 of 24

American
Copyright © 2009 by Delft University of Technology. Published Institute
by the American of Aeronautics
Institute of Aeronauticsand
and Astronautics
Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 ϕe

column (Ie )

l e1 downspring
bobweight cable 1 cable 2 ls
servo (Jm ) Fds
Fc
l e2
mbw
Fc F1 F1 F2 F2 lδe
lbw δe
θd He
elevator (Je )

Figure 2. Elevator control system model.

the limited simulator motion capabilities, for example – the differences due to errors in the aircraft model
should be minimized. This requires a highly accurate model of the aircraft and the complete control system,
which is currently not available. Previous work conducted includes the determination of some, but not all
parameters. Especially the aerodynamic hinge moment coefficients were not known.10–14
The newly installed fly-by-wire system allows for the use of complex input signals, such as optimal input
signals, for the identification of the control system models. These optimal input signals can be designed such
that the variability and bias in the parameter estimates are minimized.15–20 Furthermore, it has been shown
that computer-generated input signals have certain advantages over pilot-generated input signals, especially
in terms of their repeatability and frequency-content.18, 20, 21
This paper describes the modeling and parameter estimation of the aileron and elevator control system
of the Cessna Citation II laboratory aircraft, using flight test data from maneuvers performed autonomously
with the fly-by-wire system. The identification of the aerodynamic hinge moment coefficients will be of
special interest, as the hinge moments greatly affect the in-flight performance of the control system.
This paper will first describe the elevator and aileron flight control system models, introducing the main
parameters that need to be determined. Most of the parameters reflect the mechanical properties and
can be obtained through some cleverly-designed ground tests, which are discussed next. The hinge moment
coefficients on the other hand, can only be determined through flight tests. The paper continues with a short
description of the optimal input signals used for the identification. The flight test setup will be introduced
briefly, after which the results of the hinge moment coefficient parameter estimation are summarized. Finally,
the validity of the resulting flight control system models for elevator and aileron are shown.

II. Flight control system models

In this section, the models of the elevator and aileron flight control systems of the Cessna Citation II
will be introduced. For each of these models the parameters will be defined, and results from literature and
previous experiments will be gathered to investigate what parameters are known and what parameters still
need to be determined.

A. The elevator control system

The elevator model is build using the physical properties of the system as given in Figure 2. The model
consists of different components which are modeled by submodels and finally connected to each other to
obtain the complete model (see Figure 3).
The elevator control system consists of three main inertias, the column (Ie ), elevator (Je ) and servo (Jm ).
The inertia of the servo is known from Ref 14, whereas the other inertias are currently only known for the
Cessna Citation 500. Although the Cessna 500 is a similar, but smaller aircraft, Lubbers showed that the

2 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

effect of the inertia on the control system dynamics, for frequencies up until 10 rad/s, is marginal. Hence,
Ie and Je are assumed to be equal to the values as found for the Cessna 500.14
The length of the column is provided by the work of
Spithost, Ref 11, which gives the value for the column
upper length, le1 , for the Cessna 500. Measurements of downspring
the column in the Citation II yielded the same length.
The length of the column lower length, le2 , is also given ϕe
F1
by Spithost and can also be calculated using the ratio cable 1 column
between the maximum column and elevator deflections. ϕ̇e
For this calculation the length of the elevator arm, lδe ,
Fe
needs to be known, however, which needs to be estimated sidestick
using ground tests. θ d
autopilot
The bobweight consists of an arm lbw with a mass mbw servo
θ̇d He
attached to it. Both the mass and the arm are unknown aerodynamics
and need to be estimated as well. Another modification
to the model is the rotation of the elevator downspring, δe
which was originally placed horizontal. In the real control cable 2 elevator
system the spring is placed under an angle as shown in F2 δ̇e
Figure 2. This results in a nonlinear subsystem, of which
the structure is unknown. Both the bobweight and the
downspring model will be estimated using ground test
measurements. Figure 3. Elevator control system as a combina-
All mechanical systems experience friction between tion of subsystems.
moving parts. This friction is modeled as a simple
Coulomb friction force Fc with a maximum friction force of Fcmax . This friction force is unknown, how-
ever, the force is dependent on a number of varying conditions, such as lubrication, temperature and wear.
Because of these effects, only an indication of the magnitude of the force is required.
When the system is manually controlled, the control force is applied to the column, Fe , and when the
fly-by-wire system is active, the control force is applied by the autopilot servo. The model and parameter
estimation of the servo is described in Ref 14. The control force applied to the system by either the pilot or
the servo is used not only to accelerate the system, but more importantly, to also counteract the aerodynamic
hinge moment He .
This aerodynamic hinge moment represents the largest force, together with the control force, and it is
therefore required to obtain an accurate model for this moment. The aerodynamic hinge moment can be
modeled by:
1
He = ρV 2 c̄e Se Che , (1)
2
with c̄e the chord of the elevator, Se the surface of the elevator, and ρ and V the air-density and airspeed.
The hinge moment coefficient Che is unknown and depends on several states, including the angle of attack
(AoA) and elevator deflection. The aerodynamic hinge moment model of the Cessna 500 elevator is known
from Ref 11. This model is only given, however, for cruise and approach flight conditions. Furthermore,
it can be expected that the hinge moment parameters for the Citation II are different and therefore a new
model needs to be estimated. This estimation can only be done using flight test data, as the model depends
on several states which can only be obtained during flight.
The cables in the system are modeled by a spring and a damper of which the spring constant and damping
coefficients are known from the work of Spithost.11
In Table 1 an overview of the unknown elevator model parameters or submodels is given.

B. The aileron control system

The aileron control system is build up using different components, based on the physical system. The
components are modeled as submodels and finally linked to each other, the same way as in the elevator
control system.
The aileron control system consists of two yokes, which are connected to each other using a cable system.
In Ref 14 it is shown that this yoke system can be substituted by a single yoke and cable, which leads towards
the aileron section assembly (ASA), see Figure 4. The inertia of the yokes is known from the data of the

3 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 1. The unknown parameters and submodels of the elevator control system.

Submodel parameter known/unknown remarks

Column Ie known for C500 Ref 11
le1 known Ref 11
le2 known if lδe is known
lbw unknown
mbw unknown
Fcmax unknown
Cables complete submodel known Ref 11
Servo complete submodel known Ref 14
Downspring complete submodel unknown
Elevator Je known for C500 Ref 11
l δe unknown
Fcmax unknown
Aerodynamic c̄e known Ref 22
hinge moment Se known Ref 22
Che unknown

Cessna 500, which has the same or at least similar yokes. The dimensions of the yokes la1 and la2 are also
known from the Cessna 500. Measurements of the Citation II yokes resulted in the same dimension for la1 ;
la2 could not be measured directly and needed to be calculated from the yoke to control surface ratio.
The cable from the yoke is connected to the ASA, to which also the autopilot servo is connected. The
complete model of the servo is known from Ref 14. The ASA is modeled by an inertia, which is known
for the Citation II from Ref 11. From the ASA two cables lead to the ailerons, which are also modeled by
inertias. The inertia of the ailerons is unknown, as the aileron of the Citation II is larger than the aileron of
the Cessna 500.
Because the aileron surface is <10% larger than the surface of the Cessna 500’s aileron it is expected that
the inertia is only slightly higher than the inertia of the Cessna 500’s aileron, which is known from Ref 11.
Similar to the elevator system, the effects of inertia to the frequency response are minimal up to frequencies
of 10 rad/s.23 The arm of the aileron lδa is unknown and has to be estimated through ground tests.
The most important unknown is the aerodynamic hinge moment Ha :
1 2
Ha = ρV c̄a Sa Cha , (2)
2
where ρ and V are the air-density and speed, and c̄a and Sa the chord and surface area of the aileron, which
are both known.
The unknown parameter Cha is the hinge moment coefficient which needs to be estimated. It depends
on several aircraft states, including the AoA and aileron deflections. The model of the aerodynamic hinge
moments of the ailerons of the Cessna 500 is known from Ref 11, however, the ailerons of both aircraft
are different and therefore the hinge moment model needs to be determined for the Citation II. For the
estimation of the hinge moment coefficients, flight tests are mandatory.
In Table 2 an overview of the unknown aileron system parameters and submodels is given.

C. Model parameter estimation

In Figure 5 an overview is given of the estimation procedure for the remaining unknown parameters. Some
of the parameters of the model are known from Ref 14, which also describes the parameter estimation of the
control servos. The other parameters have to be estimated, however, as has become clear from the discussion
above.

4 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 ϕa Fa

Fc
yoke (Ia )

F1
la2

la1
θASA

δal , Ha Fc
aileron (Ja ) aileron (Ja )
F1

lδa
F2 F3
F2 F3 Fc δar , Ha
Fc
ASA

Figure 4. Aileron control system model.

For the parameter estimation of the unknown components as given in tables 1 and 2 various techniques
will be used. To obtain reliable parameter estimates, it is required to have measurements of the system of
which the parameters need to be estimated.
For the estimation of the aerodynamic hinge moments, measurements during flight are required. But
before these flight tests can take place, it needs to be determined what inputs or flight test maneuvers
are required to excite the aircraft in such a way to get enough ‘information’ of the system. This will also
determine the time required for the flight tests and thus the cost of the campaign. The design of optimal
input signals is briefly discussed in the Section IV.
Then, before the two hinge moment models can be estimated, several parameters of the complete control
system models needed to be determined through ground tests, the results of which are discussed next. After
these ground test estimations the complete mechanical control systems for the elevator and aileron are known.
The only unknown parts of the models that remain are the aerodynamic hinge moments He and Ha .
Before the estimation of the desired aerodynamic hinge moment parameters can start, the obtained flight
test data need to be processed and prepared for the parameter estimation process. The processing of the
flight data can include flight path reconstruction to check the consistency of the data, reduce measurement
noise or estimate unknown states which could not be measured. Flight path reconstruction can also reduce,
or even eliminate measurement errors, like sensor biases or errors due to the location of the sensors. The
data preparation and flight path reconstruction are discussed in Ref 23 and are not included in this paper.
With the mechanical model and the required states from the flight tests known, it is possible to estimate
the hinge moment models for both the elevator and aileron. The estimation process and the hinge moment
coefficient estimation results are described below in Section VI. Finally, the estimated model is compared
with the actual flight data, to verify the accuracy of the estimated nonlinear model in Section VII.

III. Results of the ground tests

Many of the unknown parameters of the mechanical models, needed for the final model as well as for the
estimation of the aerodynamical model, were estimated using ground tests. The unknown parameters are
the arm length of the ailerons and elevators, which determine the control input to control surface ratio, the
Coulomb friction, the bobweight mass, and length and the submodel of the downspring.
To estimate these parameters some ground measurements have been performed, the results of which are
briefly summarized in this section. Since the measurements also allowed for the estimation of the cable

5 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 2. The unknown parameters and submodels of the aileron control system.

Submodel parameter known/unknown remarks

Yoke Ia known for C500 Ref 14
la1 known Ref 11
la2 known if lδa is known
Fcmax unknown
Cables complete submodel known Ref 11
Servo & ASA complete submodel known Ref 14
Aileron Ja known for C500 Ref 11
l δa unknown
Fcmax unknown
Aerodynamic c̄a known Ref 22
hinge moment Sa known Ref 22
Cha unknown

parameter
estimation
techniques

ground

mechanic
tests estimation
mechanical
model
initial model

final model
estimation
elevator
hinge moment

aerodynamic
input signal flight flightpath
design tests reconstruction
estimation
aileron
hinge moment

preparation measuring data processing estimation

Figure 5. Model identification and parameter estimation scheme.

stiffness of the elevator cables, also this stiffness was determined as a check of the data presented in Ref 11.
First the control input to control surface ratios were determined to estimate the length of the arm of
the control surfaces lδe and lδa . Next, the Coulomb friction forces for both control systems were estimated.
Finally, the bobweight mass and arm, and the downspring models were estimated.

A. Control input to control surface ratios

The most straightforward method to estimate the control input to control surface ratios is performing
measurements during a ground test, that is, without the aerodynamic hinge moments. The method is to
deflect the control surface using the FBW control system and measuring both the servo and control surface
positions. If the measurements are performed statically, no dynamic effects are present, which makes it easy
to estimate the ratio.
Instead of performing the tests in a static sense, one might also choose for a very slow motion which
will result in negligible dynamic effects, but with (Coulomb) friction effects. Because the FBW system is
controlling the drum angle, an extra force, for example, the Coulomb friction should have a minimal influence
on the measurements, provided that the force does not become too large. If the force becomes large, cable
stretch will influence the measurements and the estimate of the ratio. The Coulomb friction, however, is
relatively small and the cable stretch can therefore be neglected.

6 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 To determine the servo/control surface ratios a ground test was performed which slowly deflected the
control surfaces to the extreme positions. Both the control surface deflections and the synchro of the servo
position were measured. The ground test was performed very slowly to avoid dynamic effects of the control
system. The deflections were applied at both the elevator and aileron control systems.
If during the deflections the mechanical stops of the control surfaces are reached, the servo will apply its
maximum torque, as the position is controlled. During this maximum torque phase, the servo will rotate
slightly more while the control surface will stay at its maximum position. The difference between both,
taking into account the ratio, is a measure for the cable stiffness. Both the stiffness and the ratio can then
be estimated together, using least squares (LS), which is allowed since there is very little noise (both process
and measurement) present.
From the estimation, the elevator arm length lδe 15
Estimated
was found to be 0.198 m, with a standard deviation Measured
No stretch
of 4.3 ·10 m. The stiffness of the cable was found
−5
10
5
to be 1.19·10 N/m at a cable force of 150 N, with
a bound for the standard deviation of 1·103 N/m. 5
The cable stiffness of the cable as reported in Ref 11

δe [deg]
was 1.27·105 , which is close to the found value here.
0
In Figure 6 the measurements and estimated
model are provided, which show an almost perfect
match. In this figure also the effect of the cable -5
stretch is visible, by an offset between the estima-
tion without cable stretch and the measurement at -10
the extreme positions of the elevator.
The aileron ratio was much more difficult to es- -15
timate, as the aileron uses a differential to let the 0 20 40 60 80 100
time [s]
aileron have a larger deflection up than down. This
difference in deflections is to compensate for the ve- Figure 6. Measured and estimated elevator deflection
locity difference at the locations of the ailerons in a during a slow full deflection sweep.
turn. The wing on the inside of the turn will have a lower airspeed an thus the same deflection of the aileron
will induce a lower drag than the outer wing. This difference in drag will induce a yawing motion which is
in the opposite of the intended direction. To compensate for the drag difference, the inner wing, at which
the aileron will deflect up, uses a larger deflection than the outer wing, at which the aileron deflects down.
This difference in deflection is nonlinear, however, and is difficult to estimate.
Hence, applying the same LS method as used for the elevator, yielded very unsatisfactory results. To
obtain a better estimate, the ratio from the travel of the cables in the wing to the aileron was approximated
by a polynomial. A third order polynomial provided a good fit. In the travel of the wings, the cable stretch
was included, using the cable stiffness as provided by Ref 11. Note that for the elevator, the value provided
by this reference was indeed close to the estimated value, therefore it was assumed that the same would be
true for the aileron.
The polynomial for computing the length of the aileron arm was found to be: lδa = 1/(−987s2c − 47.5sc +
12.9), with sc the cable travel in the wings. The polynomial indeed provided an almost perfect fit.23 Note
that for the parameter estimation of the hinge moment coefficients, a linear model is used. As during flight
the aileron deflections are usually small, it is assumed that the aileron arm is constant for small deflection.
Using the same method as for the elevator for a small range of the elevator deflection (-5 till 5 deg), the
aileron arm length lδa was found to be 0.079 m.

B. Coulomb friction
In all mechanical systems, there exists a frictional force. This frictional force counteracts the forces acting
on the system. The most basic friction model can be described by:
F = Fc · sgn(v), (3)
in which:
Fc = µFn , (4)
where µ is the friction coefficient and Fn the normal force exerted on the object. The described friction is
known as the Coulomb friction.

7 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Although the Coulomb friction is independent of the velocity v, the direction of the velocity determines
the direction of the frictional force. At a zero velocity, the value of the Coulomb friction might take all values
between −Fc and Fc or higher due to stiction.
The value of the Coulomb friction will be visible if the elevator is moved to a position and then returned
to the old position. If the force needed to move the elevator is plotted versus the position of the elevator,
the lines should overlap if there is no Coulomb friction, while there should be a constant difference if the
friction is present. The difference between the two lines is then twice the Coulomb friction.

(a) Elevator (b) Aileron

0 100
80
60
-50 40

FASA [N]
20
Fd [N]

0
-20
-100 -40
-60
-80
-150 -100
-10 -5 0 5 10 0 5 10 15
δe [deg] δa [deg]
Figure 7. The applied force to move the elevator and aileron from one position to another and back, the arrow
indicates the Coulomb friction.

In Figure 7a the force provided by the servo to deflect the elevator is plotted, the effect of the Coulomb
friction is clearly visible. The Coulomb friction acting on the servo drum appears to be in the order of 30N
for the elevator. The same can be done for the aileron, which results in Figure 7b. The Coulomb friction
force acting on the lower sector of the ASA was found to be about 40N.
It should be noted that the Coulomb friction is dependent on many variables, such as wear, temperature,
viscosity of lubricants, cable tension, etc., and the estimated values are only an indication of the magnitude.

C. Bobweight mass and arm, and downspring model

In the Cessna Citation II both a spring and bobweight are present. The bobweight is located on the same
axis as the control column, and the spring is attached to the elevator bellcrank. The bobweight provides a
higher stickforce per g and thus provides some sort of loadfactor feedback. Also pitch accelerations induce a
higher stickforce. The spring induces a force pulling the elevator to a down (+) position. The main reason
to include the spring into the control system is to obtain a more uniform stick force.24 The spring exerts a
larger force to the elevator when it is moved up, and thus provides a higher force when the aircraft is flying
slower.
The bobweight, downspring and column characteristics were modeled by Lubbers, using measurements of
the force needed to deflect the elevator through its entire range.23 He found that it is impossible to estimate
the bobweight mass and arm independent from each other, and only an estimate of the moment mbw lbw of
the bobweight could be estimated, which was found to be 0.976 kg m. This value is located in the range
of expectation, which was 0.64 to 1.27 as could be deduced from the Cessna Citation maintenance manual,
Ref 22.

D. Summary of the ground tests

The ground tests basically allowed us to compute most of the unknown model parameters in Tables 1 and
2. The only remaining unknown parameters are the elevator and aileron hinge moment coefficients Che and
Cha , which can only be determined through flight tests, as will be discussed in the next three sections.

8 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 IV. Design of optimal input signals
The design of input signals in our particular problem focuses on the excitation of the aircraft, inducing
variations on the control surfaces, AoA, sideslip angle (SSA), and essentially all other states that might
influence the aerodynamic hinge moments. In principle this should allow us to establish the relation between
the specific states and the hinge moments.

A. Classes of input signals

To induce the necessary aircraft motions, many different input signals are available to be applied at the
control surface. As illustrated in Figure 8, these input signals can range from very simple ones, like step
inputs, to more sophisticated signals like the well-known 3211, or Koehler signal. This section will very
shortly describe the procedure that has been adopted in this project to obtain a set of optimal input signals.
Input signals are constrained by practical flight test
limitations and considerations, for example, airspeed Step
deviations, control surface deflections or abnormal air-
craft attitudes. The deflections of the control surfaces 0
are bounded by a maximum due to mechanical stops.
For the Citation II, the input signals are applied by 0 5 Doublet 10 15
the experimental FBW control system which is limited

amplitude [-]
by a maximum available torque. This ensures that the
mechanical stops will never be reached, as the servos 0
cannot provide enough torque. These torque limita-
tions have to be taken into account. Due to the use 0 5 3211 10 15
of a linear hinge moment model, it is preferred to keep
the deviations in the airspeed as low a possible.
0
Although optimal input signals can basically have
any form, it has been shown in the literature that the
classical 3211 input signal performs often as good as, 0 5 10 15
time ∆ t [s]
and sometimes even better than some of the optimal
input signals.16, 20 Hence, this type of input signal was Figure 8. Time traces of various input signals.
chosen, despite the fact that the FBW control system
allows for the most enhanced input signals.

B. The 3211, or Koehler signal

The 3211 input has two important properties which can be used op optimize the performance of the input
signal, the amplitude and the duration of the signal. The duration of the signal is given in ∆t, which is the
time of one input unit, so the 3211 input has a duration of (3+2+1+1)∆t=7∆t. To find an input signal
which provides enough information to estimate the hinge moment coefficients accurate enough, a set of input
signals was generated with different amplitudes and ∆t’s.
The used ∆t’s were varied between a quarter of a second, till 3 seconds. The Amplitudes where chosen
to be (-)2.5V, 1V and a variable amplitude. The variable amplitude signal was designed to have a rising
amplitude with a rising frequency. The 2.5V amplitude was enough to induce current limiting in the servo
amplifier, thus this input results in the maximum available outputs of the control surfaces. In the case of
the 1V amplitude the current limit was never reached.

C. Results of simulations
The signals were used on the control system model in combination with a nonlinear Cessna Citation 500
model to generate simulated flight data.25 To get more realistic data, noise with realistic levels was added
to the simulated flight data. Although the dynamics of the Citation 500 model are slightly different from
those of the Citation II, this is the best available model. The parameters used to calculate the elevator
hinge moment are known, so the performance of the parameter estimation can be determined easily. The
simulated flight data are used for parameter estimation of the hinge moment coefficients using a Maximum
Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method.18, 21

9 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 3. Estimated parameter values for different input signals (true parameters are: Cha =-0.333, Chδ =-0.043,
Ch =-0.010 and Ch0 =0.000.
δ̇

simulation ∆t amplitude estimated parameter values

number Chδe Chα Chδ̇ Ch0
e

1 3s 2.5 V -0.3560 -0.0578 -0.00947 0.000313

2 2s 2.5 V -0.3501 -0.0536 -0.00914 0.000331
3 2s -2.5 V -0.3121 -0.0410 -0.00901 0.001484
4 1.5 s 2.5 V -0.3435 -0.0509 -0.00907 0.000561
5 1.5 s -2.5 V -0.3434 -0.0508 -0.00908 0.000556
6 1s 2.5 V -0.3231 -0.0395 -0.00915 0.000617
7 1s -2.5 V -0.3377 -0.0482 -0.00906 0.000773
8 1s 1V -0.3367 -0.0469 -0.01078 0.000595
9 1s var -0.3372 -0.0424 -0.01212 -0.000176
10 1/2 s 2.5 V -0.3349 -0.0443 -0.00910 0.000666
11 1/2 s 1.0 V -0.3358 -0.0428 -0.01096 0.000305
12 1/2 s var -0.3537 -0.0421 -0.01239 -0.001259
13 1/3 s 2.5 V -0.3365 -0.0425 -0.00911 0.000437
14 1/3 s 1.0 V -0.3412 -0.0423 -0.01103 -0.000030
15 1/3 s var -0.3378 -0.0422 -0.00982 0.000257
16 1/4 s 2.5 V -0.3379 -0.0416 -0.00912 0.000254
17 1/4 s 1.0 V -0.3475 -0.0416 -0.01123 -0.000567
18 1/4 s var -0.3446 -0.0404 -0.01174 -0.000583

In the literature, many performance metrics have been proposed and investigated to characterize the
strength of a particular choice of input signal. Essentially, when using the same estimation technique to
estimate the parameters of a dynamic system model, but with varying input or test signals, the accuracy of
the estimation is a measure of the input signal ‘performance’. When the accuracy is high, the test signal is
successful, and vice versa.
Using Matlab simulations, the effects of varying the amplitude and time ∆t of the 3211 input signal have
been analyzed. Table 3 shows the values of the parameter estimates when exciting the simulated aircraft
model with any of the 3211 signals. As can be seen from this table, most of the test signals yield satisfactory
results.
For all these input signals, one of the main metrics for the accuracy of a parameter estimate, the trace
of the Cramér-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB), is shown in Figure 9. Here, it becomes immediately clear that
the best performance is found at a relatively high ∆t. Making the ∆t too high, for example, 3 seconds,
however, results in a decreasing performance. The optimal value for ∆t is found to be somewhere between
1 and 2 seconds. Furthermore, higher amplitudes generally also increase performance, as all the simulations
with a amplitude of 2.5V yield lower values and thus better performance than the simulations with a lower
amplitudes, as could be expected from Ref 16.
An important design criterion in the longitudinal maneuver input design is the airspeed. The longer the
∆t, the larger the airspeed deviations, which in turn may cause problems with the identification of linear
models. Hence, the airspeed deviations should stay as small as possible and are included in the norms as
used to estimate the performance, which is visible in less performance for longer ∆t. Because the model
used is not the model of the actual aircraft, but of a similar aircraft, it is unknown whether the airspeed
deviations are comparable. If the model is not accurate in airspeed, the worst that could happen would be
that the real aircraft will deviate more from its initial airspeed than the model. This worst case should be
included in the choice of the optimal input.
The optimal 3211 input is located somewhere between a ∆t of 1 and 2 seconds and a maximum available
amplitude. With the worst case of the airspeed deviations in mind, it was chosen to use a signal with a ∆t
of 1 second with a maximum amplitude.

10 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 7
2.5V
-2.5V
6 1V
var

trace(CRLB) × 106 [-]

5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 1415 16 1718
simulation number

Figure 9. Input signal performance given as the trace of the CRLB (see Table 3).

Table 4. Input signal performance of the longitudinal input signals during flight

∆t standard deviation
Chδa Chα Chδ̇ Ch0
a

0.5s 0.0185 0.0033 0.0006 0.000047

1s 0.0118 0.0024 0.0005 0.000046

As the AoA is the most important dynamic aircraft state that affects the hinge moment, the aircraft
should be excited with the purpose to show a high change in AoA. An eigenmode that induces a rapidly
changing AoA is the short period (SP). The expected frequency for the short period is in the order of 2
rad/s,25 which is inside the frequency range of a 3211 input with a ∆t of 1s.

D. The lateral 3211 input signal

The simulations for the input signal were only performed for elevator deflections. From preliminary test
flights it appeared that the roll angles obtained from the simulations with the Cessna 500 model show higher
values than in real flight. The differences in pitch are considerable as well, however, the simulations do not
attain extreme large attitudes. Therefore the simulations in pitch can be used, but with caution.
For the lateral input signal, the ∆t was determined during the first actual production flight of this flight
test campaign. A ∆t of 1 second was chosen as initial guess, as during the test flights a 3 second step input
showed roll angles of a maximum of 40 deg, which are large, but not extreme. Also the airspeed deviations
during a 3 second step inputs proved to be low. During the first production flight ∆t’s of 1 and 0.5 seconds
were flown.
Because in the longitudinal case the inputs with large amplitudes appeared to perform best, it was chosen
to also use also a maximum amplitude of 2.5V for the lateral case. Using the obtained flight data of the first
production flight, four aerodynamic hinge moment coefficients were estimated, Chδa , Chα , Chδ̇a and Ch0 .
The resulting standard deviations are shown in Table 4.
From these results it is clear that a ∆t of 1 second performs slightly better than a ∆t of half a second.
Hence, in the two remaining flights, the lateral 3211 input signal with a ∆t of 1 second was used.

11 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Rudder synchro
Inertial measurement unit
Elevator synchro
Instrumentation rack
Inflight test display
FBW computer
Static ports

Airdata boom
alpha and beta vane

Pitot probes
Temperature probe

alpha vane
Autopilot computer
Gyrosyn compass
Aileron synchro Flight director
Magnetometer Air data computer

Figure 11. The location of the different instrumentation components.

V. Flight tests
A. TU Delft’s Cessna Citation II instrumentation system
In flight measurements require an instrumentation sys-
tem, such as the Fligh Test Instrumentation System dSPACE computer
(FTIS) as developed and used by the Control & Simu- Vertical gyroscope
lation section of TU Delft. The main FTIS component is
a real time computer based on a dSPACE processor and
data acquisition boards. These data acquisition boards
consist of both digital and analog boards and are con-
nected to all the available onboard sensors. The com-
puter uses two separate main processors, one responsible
for the input/output communication with the sensors and
one for the data processing. Data logging can be done by
the dSPACE computer or an external computer connected
to it.
The dSPACE computer is located in an instrumenta- Figure 10. The instrumentation rack in the back
tion rack in the back of the cabin, see Figure 10. The of the cabin of the Cessna Citation laboratory air-
sensors connected to the dSPACE computer include the craft.
Inertial Navigation System (INS), GPS sensors, air data, avionics and control inputs. The used sensors are
described in detail in Ref 23.
For the model identification and parameter estimation procedure at least the flight parameters as shown
in Table 5 need to be available. Some additional parameters are included, which enable a more accurate
flight path reconstruction, such as the pitch and roll angle.
Figure 11 illustrates the positions of the main aircraft sensors, probes, AoA and SSA vanes, the aileron,

12 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 5. Necessary flight data for performing hinge moment coefficient estimation.

parameter symbol unit sensor

Aileron deflection δa [rad] aileron synchro
Angle of Attack α [rad] alpha vane
Elevator deflection δe [rad] elevator synchro
Elevator trim deflection δte [rad] trim synchro
Accelerations A [g] accelerometer (IMU)
Pitch angle θ [rad] vertical gyro (TARSYN)
Pitch rate q [rad/s] rate gyro (IMU)
Roll angle φ [rad] vertical gyro (TARSYN)
Roll rate p [rad/s] rate gyro (IMU)
Servo current Ia [A] Hall sensor
Sideslip angle β [rad] beta vane
True airspeed Vtas [m/s] air data computer
Yaw angle ψ [rad] gyrosyn compass
Yaw rate r [rad/s] rate gyro (IMU)

rudder and elevator control surfaces, the synchros, FBW computer, and the FTIS instrumentation rack.

B. Setup of the flight test campaign

The measurements were performed in three differ- 44,000
ent flights. During each flight, measurements were 40,000 operational ceiling
taken at different airspeeds, from near stall to near
maximum operating speed. A safe boundary was 36,000 Mmo
taken from the stall speed to prevent stall during 32,000
=0.7
pitch up motion and high speed stall effects on the 28,000
altitude [ft]

elevator. Despite the margin taken from the stall

24,000
speed, during some measurements a high speed stall
was observed. 20,000
All measurements were taken at an altitude of 16,000
FL170 (approximately 17,000 ft or 5,200 m), which
12,000
is the altitude at which the pilot model identification Vstall Vmo = 262 kt
experiments will be flown. In Figure 12 the flight 8,000
envelope is given for a clean configuration, with the 4,000
points of the measurements indicated.
0
The measurements started at an indicated air- 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460
speed of 160 kt. The maneuvers executed during
indicated airspeed [kt]
these measurements employed the 3211 input signals
as explained in Section IV, for both the longitudinal Figure 12. The flight envelope for a clean configuration
and lateral aircraft motion. It appeared that it was with the location of the different measurement points.
beneficial to start with a lateral maneuver because the airspeed deviation during this maneuver was small.
Recovery from small airspeed deviations was much quicker than for larger deviations, therefore the flight
time can be reduced by first performing a lateral maneuver.
Next, the speed was reduced in steps, while the same maneuvers were flown. When the measurements at
the speed of 120 kt were finished, the aircraft was accelerated till the maximum speed at which measurements
were done, 240 kt. This accelerated flight was flown manually, using the FBW control system. Next, the
airspeed was reduced in steps until the initial airspeed of 160 kt, taking measurements at each airspeed.
The input signals, as defined in Section IV were applied using the FBW control system. The automatic
application of these input signals ensures that the signals were applied very accurately and consistent.

13 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 The weather conditions during the first flight were very calm and almost no turbulence was experienced.
During the last flight a small amount of turbulence was present, however, the effect on the measurements
appeared to be small.

VI. Aerodynamic hinge moment estimation

A. Elevator hinge moment
Before the measured data can be used for the parameter estimation of the hinge moment coefficients, the
data need to be properly prepared and some additional unknown states need to be estimated. A part of
this preparation is covered by the state estimation, described in detail in Ref 23. This process yields in an
estimate for the AoA of the undisturbed airspeed.

1. Calculation of the horizontal tail angle of attack

The estimation of the elevator hinge moment coefficients needs the AoA at the horizontal tail plane, αh ,
which can be computed with:  
dǫ
αh = (α − α0 ) 1 − + (α0 + ih ). (5)
dα
Hence, the undisturbed AoA needs to be corrected for the downwash angle generated by the wing of the
aircraft. Here, the term dǫ/dα needs to be estimated, which can be done either using windtunnel tests or
CFD, or through applying the approximation provided by Prandtl’s lifting line theory. Using the latter
method, Lubbers showed that dǫ/dα approximates 0.41, for AoA values ranging between 0 and 15 degrees23

2. Linear elevator model

For the estimation of the elevator hinge moment coefficients, the model described in Section II needs to be
linearized. This linear model is described in detail in Ref 23.
The aerodynamic hinge moment coefficient of Eq. 1 is given by:

Che = Chδe δe + Chδ̇e δ̇e + Chα αh∗ + Chα̇ α̇h + Ch∗0 , (6)

with αh the actual AoA of the horizontal tail plane, including the pitch rate induced AoA, which is calculated
by:
lh qc̄
αh∗ = αh + . (7)
c̄ V0
Note that the main influence of the pitch rate on the hinge moment is an induced AoA. This induced AoA
has the same effect as the ‘normal’ AoA, so the parameter Chq is highly coupled with Chα . This coupling
might cause problems with the estimation of these parameters simultaneously.
Different values for the bobweight and downspring were used in the parameter estimation. First the
estimated parameters will be shown for a 1 kg m bobweight with downspring. Then, the estimated parameters
of the model with different bobweights and with and without downspring were compared, see Ref 23

3. Estimated parameters
Parameters were estimated using MLE, with a gradient based Gauss-Newton optimization technique.18, 21
The figures show the estimated values for the different parameters, including the bounds of the standard
deviations as calculated from the Cramér Rao Lower Bound; the 95% confidence intervals are indicated by
the dotted lines.
ESTIMATE OF Chδe The estimated parameter values for Chδe are shown in Figure 13, showing
a clear trend of a more negative parameter with increasing AoA. Due to the coupling between the AoA and
the elevator deflection, the increasing AoA can also be interpreted as a decreasing elevator deflection, see
the elevator trim curve in Figure 14.
A linear fit through the estimated coefficients results in the line, see Figure 13:

Chδe = −0.3717α − 0.3189, (8)

14 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 -0.26

-0.28

-0.30

-0.32
2
[-]
e

-0.34
Chδ

-0.36 0

δe [deg]
-1
-0.38
flight 1
flight 2 -2
-0.40 flight 3
linear fit -3
95% confidence interval
-0.42 -4
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
α [deg] α [deg]

Figure 14. Elevator trim curve.

Figure 13. Estimated values for Chδe .

which can be used in the final, nonlinear model, to make the hinge moment coefficient Chδe dependent on
the AoA. Note that the Chδe for the Cessna 500 was found to be -0.33 and constant, that is, independent of
the AoA.11
ESTIMATE OF Chδ̇ The results for the estimation of Chδ̇e are shown in Figure 15. The
e
estimated values show a very clear descending line with an increasing AoA. At higher angles of attack, the
estimated parameter shows more spread, which can be explained by the aircraft becoming more sensitive to
disturbances, such as turbulence. The linear fit through the estimated parameters yields:

Chδ̇e = −0.094α − 0.017. (9)

The estimated value is significantly larger (in absolute sense) than the value reported for the Cessna 500.11
The ratio of the values found for low and high angles of attack, however, is comparable. The difference might
be caused by the difference in altitude (and thus Mach number), aircraft and model differences.
ESTIMATE OF Chα The results of the estimation of Chα are given in Figure 16. Clearly the
estimations become more negative with increasing AoA. A linear fit is given by:

Chα = −0.4229α − 0.0107. (10)

For the Cessna 500, a value of -0.043 was found, at an AoA of 0 deg. This value is higher (absolute) than
the value as estimated for the Citation II.
ESTIMATE OF Chα̇ The estimation for the Chα̇ provides not a very consistent result, see Fig-
ure 17, as the confidence intervals are rather large. An almost constant parameter value was found:

Chα̇ = −0.0333α − 0.0072. (11)

The time derivative of the AoA was calculated using:20

uẇ − wu̇
α̇ = (12)
u2 + w 2
Although the found parameters are not very consistent, it is clear by the found values that there is an
influence of the time derivative of the AoA. No values of this parameter for the Cessna 500 are known.
ESTIMATE OF Ch0 During the measurements, the autotrim was disabled to prevent the trim
tab to be moved during the maneuvers. Because the trim position was kept constant during the flight test

15 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 0.01
ts
0
-0.015
-0.01

-0.02
-0.020
-0.03
δ̇

Chα
Ch

-0.025 -0.04

-0.05
-0.030
-0.06

flight 1 -0.07 flight 1

-0.035 flight 2 flight 2
flight 3 flight 3
linear fit -0.08
linear fit
95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval
-0.040 -0.09
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
α [deg] α [deg]

Figure 15. Estimated values for Ch . Figure 16. Estimated values for Chα .
δ̇e

0.005 0.010

0 0.005

0
-0.005

-0.005
Chα̇ [-]

-0.010
Ch0

-0.010
-0.015
-0.015

-0.020
-0.020
flight 1 flight 1
flight 2 flight 2
-0.025 flight 3 -0.025 flight 3
linear fit linear fit
95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval
-0.030 -0.030
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
α [deg] α [deg]

Figure 17. Estimated values for Chα̇ . Figure 18. Estimated values for Ch0 .

maneuvers, it is impossible to estimate the effect of a trim tab deflection using the flight data. Because the
trim position will have an influence on the hinge moment, this is included into the parameter Ch∗0 :

Ch∗0 = Chδt δte + Ch0 . (13)

The estimation results of Ch∗0 are presented in Figure 18. It can be seen that the standard deviations as
found from the CRLB are extremely small, which indicates that the parameters can be estimated accurately.
This is not surprising, as most information about this parameter is found in the parts at which no dynamic
behavior is present, such as the time before the input signal is initiated. The estimation of this parameter
is almost not influenced by dynamic effects. Changes in Ch0 have a direct influence on the response of the
model, while the influence of other parameters, for example, Chα , will be scaled (in the case of Chα , by α).
These factors result in a good estimation of the Ch0 . The spread in the parameters is small and thus the
linear fit as described by:
Ch0 = −0.39α + 0.0216, (14)
provides a good estimation of the coefficient.

16 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

B. Aileron hinge moment
1. Linear aileron model
The aerodynamic hinge moments for the left and right aileron Hal and Hal are provided by:

1 2 b
Hal = 2 ρVt Sa c̄a (Ch0 − Chα αl + Chδa δal + Chδ̇a δ̇al + Chβ β ),
2Vt
(15)
1 2 b
Har = 2 ρVt Sa c̄a (Ch0 + Chα αr + Chδa δar + Chδ̇a δ̇al + Chβ β )),
2Vt
with αl and αr the angles of attack of the left and right aileron. These angles of attack include the roll rate
induced AoA, and are calculated by:
2ym pb
αl = α − ,
b 2V (16)
2ym pb
αr = α + ,
b 2V
with p the roll rate, ym the position of the aileron in the body fixed reference frame, b the wingspan, and V
the airspeed.
Not only the roll rate, but also the yaw rate will have an influence on the AoA of the ailerons. The yaw
rate will induce a higher airspeed of the aileron on the outside of a turn, while it induces a lower airspeed on
the inner aileron. This was also the reason for the application of a differential aileron deflection, as described
in Section II. Recall that the AoA is defined as:
w
α = arctan , (17)
u
so, if u changes due to the yaw rate, it will influence the AoA. The yaw rates measured during the actual flight
test maneuvers where smaller than 0.1 rad/s. This small yaw rate only induces small airspeed deviations in
the order of 0.5 m/s. Small airspeed deviations like these can safely be neglected for the airspeed range of
the estimation (approximately 80 m/s till 160 m/s true airspeed).

2. Estimated parameters
The estimation of the aileron hinge moments proved to be more difficult than the estimation of the elevator
hinge moments. This is mainly due to low roll rates, which are caused by the limited aileron deflections due
to the limited torque available by the control servos. Manual control inputs allow for larger inputs, however,
no force sensor is currently available in the laboratory aircraft to measure the aileron control forces.
Because of the low roll rates, only relatively small differences in the angles of attack of the ailerons are
available for the parameter estimation. These small AoA variations result in measurements with only a small
amount of information for the estimation of Chα , as will become clear below.
ESTIMATE OF Chδa In Figure 19 the estimation results of Chδa are given. There is a clear
negative linear trend in Chδa for increasing angles of attack. The bounds for the standard deviation are very
small, meaning the parameters can be estimated very accurately. The small standard deviations are not
surprising because the aileron deflection has the biggest influence on the hinge moment.
The general trend of the parameter with respect to the AoA can be described by the following linear
equation:
Chδa = −0.705α − 0.0795. (18)
Comparison of the found trend with the known data from the Cessna 500 as reported in Ref 11, show
much lower values for Chδa , although the descending trend is also present there. Note that the differences
are not unexpected, as the geometry of the wings of both aircraft, and presumably also the ailerons are
different.
ESTIMATE OF Chδ˙ In Figure 20 the estimations for the hinge moment coefficient Chδ˙a are
a
given. Also for this estimation a clear linear decreasing trend is visible:

Chδ̇a = −0.121α − 0.0065. (19)

17 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 -0.06 -0.006

-0.008
-0.08
-0.010

-0.10 -0.012

-0.014

[-]
[-]

-0.12

δ̇a
-0.016
a
Chδ

Ch
-0.14
-0.018

-0.16 -0.020

flight 1 -0.022 flight 1

flight 2 flight 2
-0.18 flight 3 flight 3
-0.024
linear fit linear fit
95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval
-0.20 -0.026
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
α [deg] α [deg]

Figure 19. Estimated values for Chδa . Figure 20. Estimated values for Ch .
δ˙a

0.01

0
0.10

-0.01

0.05
Chβ [-]
Chα [-]

-0.02

-0.03
0
-0.04
flight 1 flight 1
flight 2 flight 2
-0.05 flight 3 -0.05 flight 3
linear fit linear fit
95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval
-0.06
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
α [deg] α [deg]

Figure 21. Estimated values for Chα . Figure 22. Estimated values for Chβ .

The 95% confidence interval indicates the estimation is fairly accurate and also the bounds for the standard
deviations show a good accuracy of the linear fit.
Comparing the trends reported in the data from the Cessna 500,11 the same trend is visible, however,
the values are different as expected from the geometry differences.
ESTIMATE OF Chα The estimation of Chα is shown in Figure 21 and reveals a large 95%
confidence interval, indicating that the estimate is not very accurate. This is explained by the low roll rates,
and because the roll rate is the primary source of the hinge moment due to the AoA. Because of this, it
will be very difficult to obtain an accurate estimation of Chα . The effect of the AoA of the undisturbed air
cancels out between the left and right aileron as it will produce a positive hinge moment on the left aileron,
while it will produce a negative hinge moment on the right aileron. There seems to be a negative linear
trend of the parameter for larger angles of attack:

Chα = −0.120α − 0.0159. (20)

ESTIMATE OF Chβ In Figure 22 the estimation of Chβ with a linear fit is shown. Because
the accuracy of the estimations is not very good at lower angles of attack, it becomes unclear whether the
parameter could be in fact a constant. As the parameters appear to become constant at higher angles of

18 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

attack, together with lower bounds for the standard deviations it is likely for the parameter to be constant,
at least for higher AoA’s.
The uncertainty for small angles of attack is caused by less information content in the measurements for
the estimation of Chβ . Also other effects, like Mach effects, or effects from the gap between the wing and
aileron might cause the deviations from a constant value for lower angles of attack. The presence of these
effects is likely, as the estimation resulting from measurements at the same angles of attack, but at different
flights, show very consistent results.
The linear fit as shown in Figure 22 can be described by:

Chβ = −0.3095α + 0.0591. (21)

C. Summary
With the main aerodynamic hinge moment coefficients known, the validity of the linear model and the
nonlinear model can be assessed, which will be done in the next section.

VII. Validation of the flight control system models

A. Elevator model
1. Time traces of the measurements and estimated linear model
In Figure 23 time traces of the elevator deflection together with the estimated linear model are given.
Also some other interesting parameters are shown, to provide a clear picture of the maneuver and the
parameters used in the model. During the trimmed part, before the actual elevator deflection is applied, the
measurements show an elevator deflection of the model which is not constant. The cause of this difference
can be explained by the relative high noise in the measured current and thus in the torque applied to the
model. During the actual maneuvers, the noise is very small, therefore the influence of the noise will not be
very high.
The estimated model shows a good fit with the measured data. It also becomes clear that the differences
in airspeed are indeed relatively small, which is important because in the linear model the airspeed is assumed
to be constant.

2. Comparison with the nonlinear model

In Figure 24, the measured elevator response during two parabolic flights are compared with the result from
the elevator model. In this figure also all needed states and inputs for the model are provided. Clearly,
the response of the model provides an excellent fit to the measured elevator deflection. Parabolic flight is
characterized by very large deviations from the nominal states. The airspeed is varied between maximum
operating speed and stall speed, the difference in altitude during the maneuver is often more than 1,000 m
while the load factor may vary between 2.5 and 0 g.
These extreme variations in the aircraft states provide a good test to assess the accuracy of the nonlinear
model. A linear model will not be able to provide accurate results, as the states deviate far too much.

B. Aileron model
1. Time traces of the measurements and estimated linear model
In Figure 25 the time traces of the aileron deflection of both the measurement and the estimated linear
model are provided. In these figures, other important states are shown as well.
The estimated aileron deflection shows a small offset in the first and last part of the measurement, at
the time before and after the 3211 input is applied. This offset is due to the Coulomb friction, which is not
included in the model. The Coulomb friction allows a certain control force by the servos without moving
the control surface. Therefore, if the servo produces a small force, the linear model will produce a small
deflection, while in reality the control force is countered by the Coulomb friction leaving the control surface
in its initial position.

19 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 1

0.5

δe [deg]
0

-0.5
Measurement
Estimated model
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time [s]
Md [Nm] 5

-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 5

α̇ [deg/s]
α
α [deg]

0 α∗
h 0

-5 -5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.1 4
q [rad/s]

θ [deg]
2
0
0
-0.1 -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.5 130

Vtas [m/s]
∆N [g]

129
0
128
-0.5 127
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s] time [s]

Figure 23. Time traces of the measured and estimated elevator deflection, and other important states.

2
δe [deg]

-2 real flight
nonlinear model
linear model
-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time [s]
200
Fe [N]

0
-200
-400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

2 6
α [deg]

4
N [g]

1 2
0
0 -2
-4
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
150
Vtas [m/s]

50
θ [deg]

100 0
-50
50
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
5
altitude [m]

δ)te [deg]

3500
3000 4.5
2500
4
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
time [s] time [s]

Figure 24. Time traces of the measured and estimated elevator deflection, and other important states for
parabolic flight.

20 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 4
Measurement
2 Estimated model

δa [deg]
0

-2
-4
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
time [s]
MASA [Nm] 50

-50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10 0.1

r [rad/s]
left
α [deg]

9 right
0
8
7 -0.1
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
5 0.5

p [rad/s]
β [deg]

0 0

-5 -0.5
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
79.5 20
Vtas [m/s]

φ [deg]
79
0
78.5
78 -20
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time [s] time [s]

Figure 25. The time trace of the measured aileron deflection and the estimated deflection.

Some oscillations are visible in the estimated response of the aileron, which is caused by the measurement
noise of the current, from which the servo torque was calculated. Next to these anomalies, the response of
the estimated linear model shows a good fit with the measurement.
As already mentioned, due to the low roll rates, the variations in the angles of attack for the left and
right aileron show only very small changes. These changes are, as can be seen in Figure 25, in the order of
one degree. The yaw rate r shows very small variations, supporting the assumption made by excluding the
yaw rate from the AoA calculations of both ailerons.
From Figure 25 it becomes also clear that at a higher airspeed, the SSA shows lower variations, which
explains the less accurate estimation of Chβ at smaller angles of attack, see Figure 22.
Clearly the deviations of the airspeed are very small, which is important, as in the linear model as used
for the parameter estimation the airspeed is constant.

2. Comparison with the nonlinear model

With the estimated hinge moment coefficient applied to the nonlinear model as described in Ref 14, the
comparison between the real and the simulated aileron responses can be made. The comparison is provided
by two different simulations, one for a true airspeed of approximately 100 m/s (simulation 1) and one for a
true airspeed of 140 m/s (simulation 2).
The results are illustrated in Figures 26 and 27. The response of the model provides almost the same
time trace as the real measurements. Some small differences are visible, which might be caused by friction
effects which are not modeled, or turbulence. Turbulence might induce an additional moment, which makes
the aileron stop earlier or later and the aileron might stay in that position due to the Coulomb friction band.
This effect makes the real aileron control system not entirely deterministic and thus will induce slightly
different aileron positions then the model, which is deterministic.
From the results shown in Figures 26 and 27 it becomes clear that the nonlinear model is quite accurate
for the flight conditions as illustrated in Figure 12.

21 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 2

δa [deg]
-2
simulated
measured
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

time [s]

20
motor torque [Nm]

-20

-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

time [s]

Figure 26. Comparison of the measured and simulated time traces of the aileron deflection and motor torque,
using the nonlinear model (simulation 1).

0
δa [deg]

-2
simulated
measured
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

time [s]

20
motor torque [Nm]

-20

-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

time [s]

Figure 27. Comparison of the measured and simulated time traces of the aileron deflection and motor torque,
using the non-linear model (simulation 2).

22 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 VIII. Discussion
After the estimation and modification of the transmission ratios, bobweight, downspring, Coulomb fric-
tion parameters and the hinge moment coefficients, the models of the flight control system as derived in
Ref 14 showed good results. Although the actual system is not completely deterministic, the models provide
solutions very close to those obtained with the real control system.
The flight data used for the estimation of the different parameters were obtained by ground and flight
tests. The preparation of the flight tests was performed by simulating the flight tests using different input
signals. From these simulations the input signal with the best performance was selected, using three different
norms which are used in the design of optimal input signals.
The chosen input signal provided excellent measurements for the estimation of the elevator control system.
The described procedure, however, did not work for the lateral input signal, as the available aircraft model
(Cessna Citation 500) did not provide realistic roll rates and angles. The roll rates are essential for the
performance of the input signal. Because the lateral simulations cannot provide the required data accurately,
it is useless to use this model for the design of the input signal. It was chosen to use an input signal similar
to the longitudinal input. These lateral inputs provided enough data for most parameters, however, the
hinge moment coefficient derivative to alpha suffered from little information. Despite this little information
it was still possible to obtain estimations, however, with less accuracy.
Using flight test data, the MLE procedure provided good results with clear linear trends for both the
elevator and aileron hinge moment coefficients. The hinge moment derivatives showed a clear dependence
on the AoA, which results in a nonlinear final model.
The ground tests also provided measurements for the estimation of the Coulomb friction. This friction
is included in the final model. Coulomb friction is the main reason why the real control system is not
fully deterministic, as the Coulomb friction prevents the movement of the system for small forces below
the maximum Coulomb friction force. Due to turbulence, the control surface might stop at a position in
which the hinge moment is not in equilibrium with the control force, but is prevented to move due to the
equilibrium with the Coulomb friction.

IX. Conclusions
The aileron and elevator flight control system of TU Delft’s Cessna Citation II laboratory aircraft have
been modeled and its parameters identified. The flight test data were obtained in maneuvers that were
performed completely autonomously, with a novel experimental fly-by-wire system. Most of the unknown
model parameters reflected the mechanical properties and could be computed through a number of special
ground tests. The hinge moment coefficients were determined using flight test data, and it was found that
most of them could be identified with a satisfactory accuracy. Comparing time traces of the flight control
system models with measurements obtained in real-flight show that the nonlinear flight control system models
are indeed capable of describing the actual flight control system. The only nonlinearities that could not be
identified satisfactorily, were the Coulomb friction forces. The resulting nonlinear model of the flight control
system can be used in our cybernetic approach to identify multimodal pilot control behavior in real flight,
the ultimate purpose of our project.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the members of the Flight Department of the Delft University of
Technology Faculty of Aerospace Engineering who participated in preparing the in-flight experiments. We
would also express our gratitude to the pilots who participated in the experiment.
This project was supported by the Technology Foundation STW, the applied science division of NWO,
and the technology program of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

References
1 Steurs, M., Mulder, M., and Van Paassen, M. M., “A Cybernetic Approach to Assess Flight Simulator Fidelity,” Pro-

ceedings of the AIAA Modelling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Providence (RI), No. AIAA-2004-5442,
16–19 Aug. 2004.

23 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 2 Van den Berg, P., Zaal, P. M. T., Mulder, M., and Van Paassen, M. M., “Preparation for Conducting Multi-Modal Pilot

Model Identification in Real Flight,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit,
Keystone (CO), No. AIAA-2006-6630, 21–24 Aug. 2006.
3 Van den Berg, P., Zaal, P. M. T., Mulder, M., and Van Paassen, M. M., “Conducting multi-modal pilot model identification

- Results of a simulator experiment,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit,
Hilton Head (SC), No. AIAA-2007-6892, 20–23 Aug. 2007.
4 Zaal, P. M. T., Pool, D. M., Mulder, M., Van Paassen, M. M., and Mulder, J. A., “Multimodal Pilot Model Identification

in Real Flight,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Chicago (IL), No.
AIAA-2009-6028, 10–13 Aug. 2009.
5 Zaal, P. M. T., Pool, D. M., Postema, F. N., In ’t Veld, A. C., Mulder, M., Van Paassen, M. M., and Mulder, J. A.,

“Design and Certification of a Fly-By-Wire System with Minimal Impact on the Original Flight Controls,” Proceedings of the
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Chicago (IL), No. AIAA-2009-5985, 10–13 Aug. 2009.
6 Mulder, M., Kaljouw, W. J., and Van Paassen, M. M., “Parameterized Multi-Loop Model of Pilot’s Use of Central and

Peripheral Visual Motion Cues,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, San
Francisco (CA), No. AIAA-2005-5894, 15–18 Aug. 2005.
7 Löhner, C., Mulder, M., and Van Paassen, M. M., “Multi-Loop Identification of Pilot Central Visual and Vestibular

Motion Perception Processes,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, San
Francisco (CA), No. AIAA-2005-6503, 15–18 Aug. 2005.
8 Duppen, M., Zaal, P. M. T., Mulder, M., and Van Paassen, M. M., “Effects of Motion on Pilot Behavior in Target,

Disturbance and Combined Tracking Tasks,” Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and
Exhibit, Hilton Head (SC), No. AIAA-2007-6894, 20–23 Aug. 2007.
9 Zaal, P. M. T., Pool, D. M., De Bruin, J., Mulder, M., and Van Paassen, M. M., “Use of Pitch and Heave Motion Cues

in a Pitch Control Task,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 2, March–April 2009, pp. 366–377.
10 Gorsira, M. F. B., Development of a control system design for the elevator flight controls of the Citation II , Master’s

thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1993.

11 Spithost, S. P., Modelvorming van de primaire besturingssystemen van het Cessna Citation II laboratoriumvliegtuig en

een beschouwing over de hydraulische aandrijving van deze systemen., Master’s thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1993.
12 Fritschy, J. and Sneekes, E. M. P., Cessna Citation II flight-tests, Input design, Calibrations, Flight-test execution and

elementary data processing, Master’s thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1996.

13 Oliveira, J., Chu, Q. P., Mulder, J. A., Balini, H., and Vos, W., “Output Error Method and Two Step Method for

Aerodynamic Model Identification,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control conference and Exhibit, Keystone Colorado, No.
AIAA-2005-6440, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2005.
14 Lubbers, B., “A Model of the Experimental Fly-By-Wire control system of the PH-LAB,” Preliminary MSc. Thesis.
15 Mehra, R. K., “Optimal input signals for parameter estimation in dynamic systems–Survey and new results,” IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 19, IEEE, 1974, pp. 753– 768.
16 Shafer, M. F., “Flight investigation of various control inputs intended for parameter estimation,” Tech. Rep. Technical

Memorandum 85901, NASA, 1984.

17 Morelli, E. A., “Flight Test Validation of imal Input Design and Comparison to Conventional Inputs,” AIAA Atmospheric

Flight Mechanics Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, No. AIAA-97-3711, 1997.

18 Mulder, J. A., Design And Evaluation Of Dynamic Flight Test Manoeuvres, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology,

1986.
19 Klein, V. and Morelli, E. A., Aircraft System Identification: Theory and Practice, Educational Series, American Institute

of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.

20 Mulder, J. A., Sridhar, J. K., and Breeman, J. H., “Identification of Dynamic Systems - Applications to Aircraft Part

2: Nonlinear Analysis and Manoeuvre Design,” Tech. Rep. AGARD AG-300, Flight Test Techniques Series - Volume 3, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, May 1994.
21 Laban, M., On-Line Aircraft Aerodynamic Model Identification, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1994.
22 Anonymous, Cessna Citation II Maintenance Manual, Cessna Aircraft Company, 1987.
23 Lubbers, B., “A Model of the Experimental Fly-By-Wire Control System of the PH-LAB – Performing Flight tests,

system identification and parameter estimation,” MSc. Thesis.

24 Gibson, J. C., The Definition, Understanding and Design of Aircraft Handling Qualities, Delft University Press, 1997.
25 Mulder, J. A., Baarspul, M., Breeman, J. H., Nieuwpoort, A. M. H., Verbraak, J. P. F., and Steeman, P. S. J. M., “De-

termination of the mathematical model for the new dutch government civil aviation flying school flight simulator,” Proceedings
of the Annual Symposium of the Society of Flight Test Engineers, Society of Flight Test Engineers, 1987.

24 of 24

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics