Airbreathing Hypersonic Flight Vehicle Modeling and Control, Review, Challenges,
and a CFD-Based Example
Maj Mirmirani, Chivey Wu
Andrew Clark, Sangbum Choi
Multidisciplinary Flight Dynamics & Control Lab.
California State University, Los Angeles
5151 State University Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90032
mmirmir@calstatela.edu
Abstract – On November 16, 2004, NASA conducted the third
flight test – the second successful flight – of a hypersonic
research vehicle, X-43/A at Mach 10 or ten times the speed of
sound, approximately 7000 miles per hour. The last successful
flight prior to this was conducted on March 27, 2004, at an
altitude of approximately 94,000 feet at Mach 7. This flight
followed a failed experiment one year before. The unfortunate
event however exposed the underlying uncertainty and risk still
involved in this emerging technology. The incident highlighted
the need for simulation models that can reliably analyze all
possible scenarios over vehicle’s flight envelope and accurately
predict aircraft behavior prior to the actual test flight. While
unclassified models of many high-performance aircraft with
various degrees of fidelity are available for use by the
aeronautical community at large, little is reported in the open
literature on the class of airbreathing hypersonic flight vehicle
(AHFV). An effort is underway at the Multidisciplinary Flight
Dynamics and Control Laboratory at California State
University, Los Angeles in collaboration with University of
Southern California and University of Kansas to develop a high
fidelity simulation model for a full-scale generic airbreathing
hypersonic vehicle, one resembling an actual test vehicle such as
NASA’s X-43 and DARPA’s FALCON. This paper describes
specific challenges involved in modeling and control of this class
of vehicles, the current state of research, and future directions.
It also presents efforts to date to design in-house a 2-D vehicle
and develop a high-fidelity longitudinal model for control which
accounts for the complexities and dynamic coupling specific to
airbreathing hypersonic vehicles.
1. INTRODUCTION
The dynamics of airbreathing Hypersonic Flight Vehicles
(AHFVs), characterized by the tight integration of airframe
and the propulsion system make the modeling and control of
these vehicles very challenging. The couplings between the
airframe, structure, and propulsion system, the thermal
effects of hypersonic speeds, and the wide range of speeds at
which these aircraft fly pose significant control challenges.
These aircraft are characteristically unstable in pitch mode
and exhibit non-minimum phase behavior. The full-scale
vehicles will experience significant aeroelastic effects due to
their specific structural design and high aerothermodynamic
loading. Modeling and control techniques used for
conventional aircraft are inadequate for AHFVs. Models that
incorporate the interactions and the salient features of these
vehicles and takes account of the integrated airframe-engine-
control system are needed [4],[6]. The simplifying assumptions
Baris Fidan
National ICT Australia Ltd and Research
School of Information Sciences & Engineering
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
Baris.Fidan@anu.edu.au
made in models used in almost all existing literature must be
relaxed to obtain the accuracy required for flight test
environment applications. To obtain such high-fidelity
models for this class of vehicles, for which little test data are
available, will require full utilization of computational tools
combined with the underlying physics, or a hybrid
numerical-analytic approach. An effort is underway at the
Multidisciplinary Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory at
California State University, Los Angeles in collaboration
with University of Southern California and University of
Kansas to develop a high fidelity simulation model for a full-
scale generic airbreathing hypersonic vehicle, (CSULA-
GHV), one resembling an actual test vehicle such as NASA’s
X-43 and DARPA’s FALCON. Such a unique high-fidelity
model built around a set of requirements identified for an
actual global-reach future vehicle will have tremendous value
for the hypersonic research community in many ways.
This paper the preliminary design and modeling of 2-D
model of a generic vehicle, which incorporates various
dynamics of the vehicle and their interactions. The model is
developed to investigate and quantify the couplings between
aerodynamics, propulsion, structure, and the control system.
The configuration and dimensions are developed based on 2-
D compressible flow theory, and a set of mission
requirements broadly accepted for a hypersonic cruise
vehicle intended for both space access and military
applications.
The paper starts with a brief review of the existing literature,
various technological, modeling, and control challenges of
hypersonic flight and the state of knowledge in this field. It
begins with a brief historical perspective of airbreathing
hypersonic flight, to sketch the evolution of the technology.
Then, an extensive discussion of control approaches is given
followed by suggestions for future directions. Finally, the
design of a 2-D full-scale AHFV model based on oblique
shock and expansion wave theories is described and
simulation results obtained to date at MFDCLab are
presented.
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion has been studied by
NASA for more than 60 years, since the evolvement of the
hydrocarbon-fueled conventional ramjet (CRJ) engine
concept [9],[10]. In the late 1940s, the feasibility of developing
a scramjet engine attracted the attention of the propulsion
community. In the early ‘60s, the scramjet’s generic current hypersonic plans. The current hypersonic plans focus
obstacles, such as the technical hurdles of fuel injection and on the development and flight testing of small-scale (X-43A,
mixing, wall cooling and frictional losses, and nozzle X-43B, X-43C, X-43D) and one full-scale demonstrator
performance, were outlined. Meanwhile, comparisons of the vehicles [32]. X-43A is a 12-foot-long hydrogen-powered
performances of CRJ and scramjet engines determined that experimental vehicle with a five-foot wingspan (Figure 2),
the scramjet engine would outperform the CRJ somewhere in “smart scaled" from a 200-foot operational concept. It has
the speed range of Mach 6-8, and would be superior at higher been used in three scramjet-powered and un-powered flight
speeds [10],[11],[12]. The promising high-speed performance of tests at Mach 7 and Mach 10. Although the first trial in June
the hydrogen-fueled scramjet engines led to increased 2001 was unsuccessful due to a booster failure, the next two
attention on hypersonic cruise missions. In 1964, NASA flight tests were successfully conducted at Mach 7 in March
began its Hypersonic Research Engine (HRE) program, 2004 and at Mach 10 in November 2004.
which aimed to flight test a complete, regeneratively cooled,
flight-weight scramjet research engine on the X-15 rocket-
powered research plane [13]-[16]. X-15 flew several times with
a dummy test ramjet attached and reached a record-making
speed of Mach 6.72 in 1967. In April 1965, the U.S. Air
Force funded the Scramjet Incremental Flight Test Vehicle
(IFTV) program [10]. The purpose of the program was to
demonstrate vehicle acceleration from a boosted speed of
5400 ft/s to at least 6000 ft/s using four hydrogen-fueled
scramjet modules located around the central vehicle body. In
the 1970s, NASA started to focus on the rectangular Figure 1: The Flow Features on an AHFV Fore Body
airframe-integrated engine configuration [10],[13],[15],[17]-[20]
which was deemed to be superior to the previously used The profiles of these flight tests are shown in Figure 3. After
axisymmetric configuration. This concept utilizes the inlet accelerating to the test conditions (Mach 7 or Mach 10 at
sidewalls to produce extra horizontal compression in addition about 100,000 feet) on the first stage of a Pegasus booster
to the vertical forebody compression (Figure 1), and uses in- rocket, the X-43A vehicle performs powered and un-powered
stream struts as housings for distributed fuel injectors. In flight tests using its scramjet engine and gaseous hydrogen
1986, the newly developed scramjet engine technologies of fuel for five to ten seconds. The ground tests, engine designs,
the 1970s and early 1980s, specifically the development of propulsion system airframe integration issues, computational
the airframe-integrated engine concept and the need for flight fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, aerodynamic database
testing and flights demonstrating these technologies, led the development, and simulation studies for the Hyper-X
U.S. Air Force and NASA to initiate the National Aerospace program can be found in [34]-[43]. Among the other three
Plane (NASP) program, a major hypersonic flight research demonstrator concepts, which are yet to be flight-tested, X-
program including flight tests. The focus of the NASP 43B is a 35'-45' reusable, combined cycle demonstrator
program was to build an airbreathing single-stage-to-orbit vehicle with combined turbojet and dual-mode scramjet
(SSTO) experimental aircraft, the X-30, which would be power. X-43C is a 16-foot-long hydrocarbon-powered
used for hypersonic flight testing and demonstration. NASP vehicle utilizing a three-module engine which will accelerate
incorporated extensive development of rectangular airframe- the vehicle from Mach 5 to Mach 7 during the flight test. X-
integrated scramjet technology, including a large number of 43D is a concept for flight testing hydrogen-fueled scramjet
newly developed modular experimental engines which were engines at velocities of Mach 15 or greater. Finally a large-
tested at NASA Langley Research Center (LRC) in the Mach scale reusable demonstrator (LSRD) vehicle, whose
4-7 regime [10],[21],[22]. The NASP program led to extensive architecture is the same as that of the operational vehicle and
studies on AHFV modeling and control. In [4],[23] the dynamic whose size is large enough to operate overall airbreathing
characteristics of AHFVs with airframe-integrated engines propulsion speeds, is planned to be built and flight tested.
emerged, with an emphasis on the interactions between the
airframe, engine, and structural dynamics. Shortly, based on
the X-30 configuration, a few mathematical models were
developed, some guidance and control schemes were
designed, and certain performance and stability issues were
analyzed [5],[7],[24]-[29]. In spite of the enormous amount of
effort and achievements in many aspects, the NASP program
was terminated in January 1995 due to lack of funding,
without having conducted flight tests.
The original NASP program was a full-scale operational
prototype vehicle system development program rather than
an incremental technology program. In 1996, NASA started
Figure 2: X-43A (NASA LRC Archive)
the Hyper-X program [9],[10],[30]-[33] as an initial stage of its

Figure 3: Hyper-X Flight Trajectory (NASA LRC Archive)
The U.S Air Force is currently conducting another scramjet
development program, the Air Force Hydrocarbon Scramjet
Engine Technology (HyTech) program [10],[32],[44]. Although
HyTech is currently missile-oriented, it is expected to be
incorporated with hypersonic transportation and, in particular,
in the X-43B and X-43C projects of the Hyper-X program.
3. FLIGHT DYNAMICS OF HYPERSONIC VEHICLES
Before the 1990s, hypersonic research was almost solely
focused on the development of engines that would power
flight over wide speed ranges in subsonic, supersonic, and
hypersonic regimes. However, later studies, especially the
NASP and the Hyper-X programs, have identified key
technological obstacles to the feasibility of hypersonic
transportation. One primary challenge is flight controller
design. Designing reliable and effective AHFV controllers
requires careful consideration of these vehicles’ unique
dynamic characteristics, which differ in major ways from
those of typical aircraft. For X30, X43A, and other
hypersonic aircraft configurations with airframe-integrated
scramjet engines [4],[5],[45], the primary lift generating surface
is the body itself. Besides the aerodynamic effects of
hypersonic speeds, the strong interactions between the elastic
airframe, the propulsion system, and the structural dynamics
make the explicit characterization of flight dynamics of
AHFVs highly challenging [4],[45],[46]. It is well known that a
number of control challenges arise from the fact that the
airframe and the propulsion system are very tightly
integrated and full-scale vehicles will experience significant
aeroelastic effects. Aeroelastic effects and/or aircraft
structure vibration result in mass-flow spillage, because the
bow shock angle changes and does not impinge on the inlet
lip (Figure 1) as the structure deforms, resulting in the engine
operating in off-design conditions. Operation under off-
design conditions affects the aerodynamic forces and
moments, as well as the thrust. Variable geometry inlets will
be required for maximum engine performance and the
bandwidth of the inlet actuators may have an effect upon
one's ability to control such a vehicle since they must be fast
enough to respond to bow-shock position variations caused
by structural vibrations and disturbances. These aircraft are
also characteristically unstable in pitch, and exhibit non-
minimum phase behavior. In addition, the dynamic
characteristics of the hypersonic vehicle vary more
significantly over the flight envelope than other aircraft due
to the extreme range of operating conditions and the rapid
change of mass distribution. Moreover, many aerodynamic
and propulsion characteristics still remain uncertain and are
hard to predict due to the almost complete lack of flight test
data and the inadequacy of ground test facilities. The
following sections explore the major issues characterizing
AHFV flight dynamics in more detail.
4. EFFECTS OF HYPERSONIC SPEEDS
At hypersonic speeds, the aero-thermodynamic properties of
the air deviate from the ideal gas behavior with more
significant impact at Mach 6 and faster [4], [46]-[48]. In
particular, the temperatures behind the normal shock waves,
the loading on certain aircraft surfaces, and the pitching
moment coefficient increase with the Mach number [4],[49],[50].
On the other hand, the high temperature gas effects of
hypersonic flow regimes thicken the boundary layer around
the aerofoil, changing the effective aerodynamic surface
significantly. This change as well as the flow separation and
reattachment phenomena lead to viscous behavior in terms of
pressure distribution, shock waves, and drag, differing
significantly from the results of the inviscid characteristics of
the aerofoil. High temperatures on the control surfaces place
constraints on control surface deflection limits. The
variations due to wide speed ranges of a complete flight and
the sensitivity of the AHF dynamics to the flight conditions,
requires a highly integrated guidance scheme flight control
system to provide a robust, stable high-performance flight.
On the other hand, hypersonic speeds cause the so-called
“path-attitude decoupling" phenomenon, which is the
resistance of the high momentum of the AHFV to the
changes in the desired flight path [51],[52],[53]. Hence the actual
flight path significantly lags the changes in the pitch attitude
at hypersonic speeds.
5. VARIATIONS DUE TO SPEED RANGE
The dynamic characteristics, stability, and performance of
AHFVs vary over the flight envelope more than other aircraft
due to their wide range of operating conditions and mass
distributions. The effect of hypersonic speed on flight
stability of AHFVs was studied as early as the 1970s. Static
stability margins decrease as the Mach number increases
[4],[54]
. In order to have reasonable static margins at
hypersonic speeds, one needs to accept high-static stability
margins, which means large control deflections, and
decreased maneuverability at lower speeds. On the other
hand, if the low-speed static stability margins are desired to
be kept in the conventional range, one must accept unstable
configurations at hypersonic speeds in pitch mode. The
tightly integrated air-frame propulsion system configuration
needed for efficient AHF also affects landing/take-off
performance and increases transonic drag. Ground testing at
NASA LRC that examined subsonic AHFV behavior close to
the ground plane demonstrated that turning the power off
causes a sharp increase in lift while turning the power on
causes negative lift effect together with a large increase in
the pitching moment. These effects result from the diverging
angle between the nozzle and the ground plane [55]. The
external nozzle configuration for good hypersonic
performance causes flow separation at lower speeds and a
steep increase in drag while passing from the subsonic to
supersonic regime.
6. SCRAMJET ENGINE DYNAMICS
Scramjet engines operate by supersonic combustion of fuel in
an air stream compressed by the aircraft's forward speed.
Using hydrogen (or hydrocarbon) as the basic fuel for
combustion, airbreathing scramjet engines burn oxygen
scooped from the atmosphere. Since the hydrogen and the
scooped oxygen have less time to mix and react in supersonic
combustion, the combustor needs to be longer. Moreover, in
order to produce sufficient thrust for hypersonic flight, the
engine inlet must capture as much of the airflow under the
AHFV surface as possible. This is done through the integration
of the engine with the airframe so that the inlet area is
contiguous with the vehicle undersurface [4],[10],[13],[18]. The inlet
sidewalls produce extra horizontal compression in addition to
the vertical fore-body compression.
indicates a similar effect of the fuel flow rate and diffuser
area ratio changes on the AHFV pitch rate.
Another major source of dynamic coupling in AHFVs is the
aeroelastic modes. Bending of the fore-body and aft-body
together with propagations throughout the entire airframe
affect the flows through the inlet and the exhaust and hence
the aerodynamic performance.
Elastic-rigid body interactions are also significant in AHFVs,
since the low structural vibration frequencies are close to
those of the rigid body as a result of the requirement for very
low structural weight [4],[57]. Accurate determination of the
structural elastic modes is critical for flight control,
especially for precise control of the AOA. However, the non-
uniform aerodynamic heating in AHF, unconventional
composite materials used in building the airframe, and the
shell-type structure of AHFVs cause significant variations
and uncertainties in the shapes and natural frequencies of the
elastic modes. [5],[58]-[63]. The interactions among the flight
dynamics, the engine, and the structural dynamics are
illustrated in Figure 4.

7. AIRFRAME – PROPULSION - STRUCTURAL

DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS

In AHFVs with airframe-integrated scramjet engines, the

aerodynamics, propulsion system, and structural dynamics
are highly interactive; hence the control bandwidths for flight
and propulsion systems cannot be separated clearly. The
Figure 4: AHFV Dynamics
engine-airframe integration causes significant interaction
between the propulsion system and vehicle aerodynamics
[4],[23],[45],[55] 8. DATABASES AND UNCERTAINTIES
. Considering the longitudinal dynamics, the inlet
flow pressure acting on the fore-body generates a nose-up
Despite the unprecedented capabilities of the powerful CFD
pitching moment while the external nozzle flow generates a
codes available today, the development of conventional
nose-down pitching moment. These flows may also affect the
aircraft and the design of their control systems depend on the
lateral dynamics if they are laterally non-uniform.
use of empirical estimates of aerodynamic and engine data
Similarly, the aerodynamics affects the propulsion system in
obtained from sources such as U.S. Air Force DATCOM,
several ways. The capture and compression of the flow
wind-tunnel data, and flight test data. Design and
through the inlet is determined by the properties of the bow
development of hypersonic aircraft, however, must proceed
shock wave under the vehicle fore-body, which are
without the benefit of a vast statistical database of actual
determined by the angle of attack (AOA) and the dynamic
flight test data. The insufficiency of the flight test data and
pressure as well as the free stream characteristics [4],[56]. The
inadequacy of the ground test facilities lead to aerodynamic
AOA and the dynamic pressure also affect the combustion
and propulsion uncertainties.
kinetics and the exhaust flow/free stream shear layer. The
Unpredictable aerodynamic and thermodynamic behaviors
sensitivity of the performance to the AOA and the dynamic
due to hypersonic speed and aerodynamics-propulsion-
pressure is small at high Mach numbers and increases as the
structural dynamics interactions constitute another
speed decreases. At low speeds, the AOA and the dynamic
uncertainty source [4],[7],[57]. The propulsion system
pressure need to be greater than certain values in order to
perturbations that indirectly impact the longitudinal
provide acceptable performance.
dynamics, the elastic mode variations, non-uniform pressure
The couplings among the AHFV aerodynamics, the airframe,
distribution, and the uncertainties explained above comprise
and the propulsion system are demonstrated via the results of
some of these unpredictable behaviors. The mass property
a frequency domain numerical analysis in [4]. This analysis
variations can also be considered to be a modeling
shows that the thrust and the pressure at the engine inlet are
uncertainty. In general, many of the critical aerodynamic
significantly affected by pitching control surface, e.g., elevon
characteristics are hard to predict while the ability to
defections over a wide frequency range. The analysis
experimentally determine them is limited. Hence,
conventional control methodologies that depend on relatively
accurate models and a reliable aerodynamic database are not
suitable. Robust control design and compensation algorithms
involving intelligent and adaptive flight control are
necessary.
9. MODELING AIRBREATHING HYPERSONIC FLIGHT
DYNAMICS
The traditional development of equations of motion for flight
vehicles is based on a Newtonian approach that excludes the
elastic degrees of freedom [64],[65]. At the other end of the
spectrum, the purely structural dynamics models for
aeroelastic analysis exclude rigid-body modes [66],[67]. A
common approach used in modeling for control design
assumes that the aircraft dynamics can be decomposed into
two distinct parts with sufficiently separated bandwidths:
dynamics of “measured” states, and dynamics of
“unmeasured” states. The dynamics with the lower bandwidth
includes the states that can be measured during the flight, such
as vehicle’s velocity, altitude, angle of attack, and pitch rate.
The effects of structural dynamics, propulsion, and
aeroelasticity, the “unmeasured” states, and their contributions
to the overall dynamics of the vehicle are in general hard to
measure and model, and therefore have been combined and
treated as uncertainties in the control design formulation. In
the case of AHFVs for example, with few exceptions, the
effect of propulsion and its interaction with aerodynamics of
the vehicle has not been included in the development of
models and/or control algorithms.
The majority of the AHF dynamic models in the literature
consider only longitudinal motion. A widely used longitudinal
model in the literature is the rigid-body model of [68],[69], for the
winged-cone accelerator configuration. The winged-cone
configuration is of course significantly different from the
rectangular airframe-integrated engine configuration of X-30
or X-43. Moreover, the model is derived assuming that the
body is rigid, neglecting the coupling effects among
aerodynamics, propulsion, and structural dynamics.
The effects of couplings are formulated in [[57]] as additive
uncertainties and incorporated into a linear model of the
vehicle. The impact of the propulsive perturbations on the
pitching moment is also incorporated as parametric uncertainty
in the coefficient of pitching moment as a function of AOA.
The coupling between elastic and rigid structure modes is
included in the frequency domain by defining cover function,
carrying information about the flexible modes.
A drawback of the linear models is their limited capability to
represent the dynamics and the coupling effects realistically.
Nonlinear models avoid this deficiency, and can incorporate
rich information. Although using a nonlinear model places
limitations on the designs that can be used to control the
system in general, recent and ongoing developments in
nonlinear control have, to a great extent, relieved this burden
[68],[69],[71]-[77]
. controllers have the common property of being highly
A more exclusive and realistic mathematical model for AHFV
longitudinal dynamics is in [5],[26], an analytical aero-
propulsive/aeroelastic hypersonic-vehicle model derived for
the rectangular AHFV configuration with airframe-integrated
scramjet. This model focuses on dynamic couplings and
control system integration.
The longitudinal dynamic model for the rectangular AHFV
configuration with airframe-integrated engine in [5],[26] is
extended to include other dynamic effects using the equations
of motion, kinematics equations, and the 3-DOF point-mass-
model derived for generic elastic hypersonic flight vehicles in
[6]
. The equations derived include the effects of rigid-body
motion, elastic deformation, fluid flow, rotating machinery,
wind, and Earth rotation, and the couplings among them.
Although [5],[6],[26] models the integrated scramjet engine
dynamics and the hypersonic aerodynamics to some extent,
and even though it analytically elaborates the coupling issues,
it still neglects both parameter variations and modeling
uncertainties. Reference [7] considers these effects to a degree,
focusing on the determination of the sources and the extents of
uncertainties, and the development of uncertainty models for
AHFVs. Specifically, it develops a model for the rectangular
AHFV configuration with airframe-integrated engine that is
suitable for robust multivariable control design.
An extensive computational model for a Generic Hypersonic
Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME) is presented in
[45],[78]
. GHAME is composed of five data sets: two
aerodynamic models (one based on empirical data sources and
the other on analytical programs); two aero-thermodynamic
models (a simple convection-radiation heat flux and
equilibrium model and a model obtained through analytical
programs); and a simplified switching turbojet-ramjet-scramjet
engine model. The aerodynamic models are based on a rigid
body configuration with geometry similar to that of the conic
accelerator [68],[69].
10. AIRBREATHING HYPERSONIC FLIGHT CONTROL
The available theoretical studies in the AHF control literature
focus on the longitudinal dynamics — ignoring its lateral-
directional counterpart — because the longitudinal dynamics is
the most critical from a flight stability point of view, and
because full 6-DOF models are not simple enough to form a
basis for conventional control design purposes. The control
design problem becomes significantly more complex when
lateral-directional characteristics are included.
Stability, performance, and robustness are the three main
concerns in reaching the goal of control system design.
Since robust AHF control approaches take into account
modeling uncertainties, noting the trade-off between
robustness and performance, they are the most realistic
approaches. In the existing literature, robust AHF control
approaches can be divided into two categories: linear model-
based and nonlinear model-based. In linear model-based
approaches, classical robust control [76],[77] techniques such as
H∞ and µ-synthesis are applied to the AHFV models with
structured and unstructured uncertainties. The resultant
conservative with undesirable compromise in performance.
Included among the linear model-based approaches are the
robust control design for the rigid conic accelerator
configuration in [69] and [57] Another H∞-based approach to
control of the linear model of [68],[69] is presented in [81].
However, this approach does not take into account
disturbances and modeling uncertainties, and the H∞
techniques are used to develop an alternative to the
eigenstructure assignment design. The focus of the approach is
decoupling the phugoid and short-period modes. The
simulation results in [81] demonstrate the effectiveness of the
new H∞-based eigenstructure assignment design compared to
the traditional Shapiro design.
As previously alluded, nonlinear models are more suitable for
representing the coupling effects in detail. As an alternative to
the classical robustness theory developed for linear systems,
the concept of stochastic robustness [73]-[75] has been introduced
for nonlinear systems. Nonlinear-model-based (stochastically)
robust control techniques have the benefit of being less
conservative in terms of robustness. Their drawback is the
difficulty of parameterizing the uncertainties and forming the
uncertainty vector reliably. These techniques are applied to the
longitudinal AHF in [71] and [72]. An LQ design is used in [71],
and is improved upon in [72] using a triangular model and
imposing nonlinear dynamic inversion techniques [82].
A recent alternative to the nonlinear controller of [72] is the
adaptive sliding mode control approach of [83],[84]. In this work,
a new adaptive sliding mode technique for a class of MIMO
nonlinear systems including the nonlinear models is presented.
The adaptive scheme is based on the inverse dynamics of the
original system. The adaptive structure makes the controller
efficient in dealing with the parametric uncertainties. The
states that are not available for measurement are estimated
using a nonlinear sliding mode observer.
In all the above designs, the controller applies to a certain
flight condition and hence a supervisor such as a gain
scheduling scheme is needed in order to run the controller in
the entire flight envelope. Any supervisor design should take
into account the significant variations in the AHF system due
to wide speed ranges. To this end, time- and/or parameter-
varying approaches appear as alternatives or companions to the
gain scheduling schemes.
The literature includes a number of other efforts to control
hypersonic flight. However, these works pay less attention to
the airframe/engine/elastic coupling in the hypersonic flight
dynamics of airbreathing aeroelastic vehicles and
characteristics of modeling uncertainties. They merely
concentrate on the application of specific techniques to the
existing hypersonic flight dynamic models. Main categories of
this group of works are model reference adaptive control
approach for linear models [85], optimal and sub-optimal
control approaches [86]-[88], genetic-based, algorithm-based
approaches [89], fuzzy control approaches [90], and neural
network approaches [91],[92].
11. NASA AHFV PROGRAMS FLIGHT CONTROL
DESIGNS
Although a significant number of AHFV control schemes have
been designed and tested via simulations, none has been
completely implemented in a real AHFV — primarily because
the AHF technology is in its developmental and testing stages.
No operational vehicle yet exists, and the aim of the flight tests
conducted or planned thus far has been to analyze newly
developed AHFV components and quantify the AHF dynamics
rather than to perform a complete guided flight. Nonetheless,
the use of an efficient flight controller is one of the key
technologies for flight demonstration of the scramjet-powered
hypersonic aircraft. In the Hyper-X program, such a controller
achieved successful separation from the booster rocket,
maintaining the design condition during the engine test, and
provided a controlled descent [33]. The control laws to perform
these tasks, developed as a Boeing/NASA partnership, have
been tested via flight simulations and stability margin analyses
before being used in the flight tests. The basic goal of the flight
control system in Hyper-X was to maintain the desired AOA
and bank angle to within ±0.5 degrees during the test flights,
and to follow steering commands from the guidance system to
maintain a desired descent trajectory after the tests are
completed. Control surfaces used were basically symmetric
with differential defection of the all-moving wings (AMW)
and twin rudders. The pitch rate, yaw rate, roll rate, and bank
angle measurement units and the control mechanism generated
the aerodynamic surface commands by processing guidance
commands and sensor feedbacks. Conventional AOA
measurement devices cannot be used due to aerodynamic
heating. Several techniques to estimate an accurate measure of
AOA have been developed and used [33].
The Hyper-X flight control scheme design illustrated in
Figure 5 uses classical linear control techniques [93] rather than
advanced nonlinear laws [33]. The control design is based on a
linear model including rigid-body modes and second-order
actuation modes. Lead-lag compensators are used to improve
stability margins. Elastic mode effects are circumvented in the
controller design as a part of the gain margin requirements,
avoiding the use of a separate structural filter. A feedforward
compensator suppresses the effects of the propulsion system
and dynamic pressure variations on the AHFV. The controller
parameters are gain scheduled with AOA and Mach number.
Figure 5: Overview of the Flight Control Scheme for X-43A, Designed by
Langley and Dryden Research Centers of NASA
12. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTROL DESIGN
After performing a sufficient number of flight tests with
demonstrator vehicles, the next step in AHF research will be
guided AHFs that follow certain prescribed paths. The final
goal could be using AHFVs efficiently to follow arbitrary
paths similar to conventional aircraft in a wide speed span
including hypersonic ranges. This goal could be broadened to
include the original single-state-to-orbit (SSTO) and triple-
stage-to-orbit (TSTO) space access task of NASP.
Development of new technologies in various areas including
controls will be vital in reaching all these future goals.
The airframe-integrated scramjet engine concept forms the
basis of the technology of current and foreseen AHF programs,
and is the focal configuration of all major AHF research
centers worldwide [10],[32],[96],[97]. Considering the airframe-
integrated engine configuration, an essential task is to enhance
and optimize the propulsion systems developed for this
configuration. Discussions on new combustor designs for
using hydrocarbons as fuel instead of hydrogen can be found
in [10],[13],[32],[96]. Due to aero-thermodynamic effects, new
materials and active cooling techniques must be developed and
used in structural components of the AHFVs [10],[45],[96]. The use
of passive and active heat resistant devices will reduce the
uncertainties due to aero-thermodynamic effects as well as
improve the overall flight performance. This is essential, since
the uncertainties in the existing models are too large to meet
certain requirements of robust high-performance flight
controllers. The two most dominant sources of uncertainty are
the lack of sufficient data on hypersonic flight dynamics and
commonly ignored coupling effects. The former can only be
addressed in time, through performing ground and flight tests.
Until that time, reliance on high-fidelity simulation models
such as the one presented here is the only viable alternative.
Ongoing studies and discussions on data collection via
experiments and numerical techniques can be found in
[36],[37],[39]-[42],[58],[96]
. state space model will be explicit functions of time. The
The integrated longitudinal aero-propulsive/aeroelastic models
derived and elaborated in [5],[7],[26] represent more dependable
alternatives to the simpler conventional models. These models
could be further enhanced by including lateral and directional
dynamics. The trade-off between comprehensiveness and
complexity of design and implementation should be the
guideline for modeling. As the more comprehensive models
have larger numbers of states, inputs, outputs, and
nonlinearities, a controller satisfying certain performance,
stability, and robustness requirements would be harder to
achieve. Techniques recently developed for certain classes of
nonlinear and multivariable systems have proved effective for
complex models provided the model can be formulated in a
certain “triangular” structure [98]-[103].
In order to implement the control designs based on the
integrated models, the aerodynamic and propulsive control
laws to be applied need to be interactive. Engine control
effectors controlling fuel flow, the inlet/diffuser area ratio, and
the exit area of the internal nozzle should be in use along with
the conventional control surfaces [16]. These control effectors
should be commanded via an integrated mechanism that
processes the combined information from the aerodynamic and
propulsive measurements. The system integration approach is
not limited to modeling and control. The approach has been
used to optimize configuration variables of a scramjet-powered
hypersonic cruise missile for maximizing the airbreathing
range [97].
To perform a fully guided AHF design, a supervisor to handle
the variations in the complete flight envelope should be
designed. As the control designs found in the literature apply
only to a certain flight condition, in order to extend their
applicability to the entire flight envelope, the design procedure
needs to be repeated for a sufficient number of flight
conditions. The supervisory scheme will be required to
perform the transitions between these flight conditions. The
conventional methodology used in aerospace applications is
gain scheduling, but in spite of its wide use and the recent
interest of the academic research community, there is still a
lack of tests to guarantee global stability of gain-scheduled
systems in general [104]-[107]. Furthermore, slow plant parameter
variations and sufficient number of flight conditions at which
the dynamics are completely quantified are generic
assumptions for applicability of the gain scheduling schemes.
Considering the significant and fast variations in the AHF
system due to dominant hypersonic regimes, wide operation
ranges, and the lack of broad flight data, recently developed
time- and parameter-varying approaches can be used to fill the
gaps in the gain scheduling schemes.
For example, employing the parameter-varying system
methodology, the flight-condition-specific models can be
replaced with the smooth nonlinear functions of a lumped
time-varying parameter vector defining the flight conditions [8].
Since this vector itself is an explicit function of time, the entire
system can be formulated as a time-varying dynamic system,
which is not necessarily linear. In the case of linear models, for
example, the conventional A, B, C, and D matrices of the linear
information necessary to evaluate these functions is
determined by the guidance scheme of the complete flight and
the flight condition database. Due to the absence of a perfect
database, the difference between the desired (guided) and
actual flight trajectories, and unmodeled disturbances and
uncertainties, system parameters are not expected to be fully
known. Hence adaptive laws to estimate these parameters
online will be required in the control design.
Time- and parameter-varying methods have already been used
in designing controllers for various aerospace systems [108]-[110].
These control designs, however, are in general based on the
assumption that the variations are slow in a certain sense and
they do not exploit the a priori information about the variation
structures. A method to exploit the a priori information about
the system parameter in designing controllers for time-varying
systems is presented in [111]. This method is used to design
effective adaptive controllers for linear time-varying systems
in [111]-[114]. Moreover, the control scheme of [114] can be
extended to a class of nonlinear systems. This extended
scheme is a potential candidate for AHF control. Another
specific issue to be addressed in AHF control design is
estimation of in-flight parameters. This is partially
circumvented in output feedback designs such as those in
[98],[111],[114]
, in which among the plant signals, only the plant
output is required to be measured in order to generate the
control signal. Even with these controllers, some estimation
may be needed if the output signal cannot be measured
accurately. Case in point is the AOA measurement in the
control law development for the X-43A [33]. In hypersonic
operation, conventional AOA measurement devices cannot be
used due to aerodynamic heating. Several techniques to
estimate an accurate measure of AOA have already been
developed and used in the Hyper-X program [33]. The
estimation techniques to be used, however, must guarantee no
adverse effect on the stability and performance of the overall
control scheme. Using linear-model-based estimators together
with nonlinear controllers, for example, may not be efficient.
Newly developed nonlinear observers and estimators [98],[115]-
[117]
can be used with possible nonlinear AHF controllers.
13. DEVELOPMENT OF A 2-D LONGITUDINAK AHF
CRUISE VEHICLE MODEL
An effort is underway at the Multidisciplinary Flight
Dynamics and Control Laboratory at California State
University, Los Angeles in collaboration with University of
Southern California (USC) and University of Kansas (UK) to
develop a high-fidelity simulation model for a full-scale
generic airbreathing hypersonic vehicle, one resembling an
actual test vehicle such as NASA’s X-43 and DARPA’s
FALCON. Based on a set of requirements broadly identified
for an actual AHFV, a full-scale generic airbreathing
hypersonic vehicle (CSULA-GHV) is under development,
with a high level of detail over a wide speed range (Mach 0.3
to Mach 20), using available unclassified (open literature)
information. The CSULA-GHV will be designed to the
requirements of a global-reach vehicle that must travel to a
target halfway around the world in less than two hours,
deliver a payload of 10,000-20,000 pounds, and return to
base without refueling at altitudes near the outer limit of the
Earth’s atmosphere. The CSULA-GHV concept vehicle
(Figure 7) has an integrated airframe propulsion system
configuration resembling that of the X-43.
As a first cut a 2-D version of the GHV has been designed to
develop a longitudinal model for control design application.
The vehicle has an integrated airframe-propulsion system
configuration resembling an actual test vehicle and is
specifically designed to study the unique challenges
associated with modeling and control of airbreathing
hypersonic vehicles. Specifically, the model is developed to
investigate and quantify the couplings between
aerodynamics, propulsion system, and control system. The
configuration and dimensions are developed based on the 2-
D compressible flow theory, and the set of mission
requirements described above. The vehicle is designed to the
requirements broadly accepted for a hypersonic cruise
vehicle intended for both space access and military
applications. The longitudinal equations of motion include
both an inverse-square-law gravitational model and a
centripetal acceleration that results from a curved flight path.
Longitudinal control is affected by elevators and the engine
thrust. Main aerodynamic coefficients, CL , CD , and CM, and
the stability derivates are obtained using analytical
aerodynamic calculations assuming a cruising condition of
Mach 10 at an altitude of 100 km. The 2-D oblique shock
theory is used to predict shock wave angles, pressure on the
frontal surface, and Mach number at the engine inlet as
described in the following section. The scramjet engine is
simply modeled by a 1-D compressible flow with heating,
which predicts the flow rate of hydrogen fuel required for a
chosen design Mach number at the engine exit. The exit flow
is modeled by 2-D expansion wave theory, which can be
used to predict the pressure on the rear surface. Resultant
aerodynamic forces, total lift and drag, and engine thrust are
then estimated by summation of these pressure forces and
momentum change of the airflow. The unique aspect of this
study is the multidisciplinary simulations of the vehicle
dynamics in conjunction with the theory which enable
quantification of the couplings which are broadly ignored in
models used for control system design in the past.
13.1 2-D GHV Configuration Design
As an initial concept, a simple 2-D configuration for the
hypersonic vehicle is designed based on inviscid
compressible flow theory of a perfect gas. As shown in
Figure 6, the upper body of the vehicle is simply a flat
surface, which is kept at zero angle of attack for simplicity.
The lower side consists of a frontal wedged surface, a
scramjet engine with a constant cross-section area and
another trailing wedged surface. The frontal wedged surface
serves as a diffuser for the flow entering the scramjet, and the
trailing surface acts as a propulsive surface. The leading
edge angle is arbitrary chosen to be θ = 50, the length of the
engine 9.5 m, and the engine cross-section area is A = 0.6 m
(height) by 1 m (span).
Figure 6 Shock and Expansion Waves in a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle
Configuration
A flight Mach number M1 = 10 at an altitude of 30 km
(where the standard atmospheric temperature and pressure
are T1 = 227 K and P1 = 1172 Pa, respectively) is considered,
and a corrected specific heat ratio γ = 1.36 for air at
hypersonic speeds is assumed. The wave angle (β1) of the
oblique shock generated from the leading edge, the Mach
number (M2), pressure (P2) and temperature (T2) behind the
shock can be determined by the oblique shock relations:
( ) ( ) 2 − 1⎞⎠
2 ⋅ cot β 1 ⋅ ⎛⎝ M1 2 ⋅ sin β 1
tan( θ)
M1 ⋅ ( γ + cos ( 2 ⋅ β 1) ) + 2
2
γ−1
1+ ( ( ))
⋅ M1 ⋅ sin β 1
2
(
M2 ⋅ sin β 1 − θ ) 2
( ( ) ) 2 − γ −2 1
γ ⋅ M1 ⋅ sin β 1
 ⎡ ⎤ ⎛ 1 ⎞
P2 := P1 ⋅ ⎢ 1 +
2γ ⎡
(
⋅ M1 ⋅ sin β 1
γ+1 ⎣
2
− 1⎤ ⎥
⎦⎦ ( )) µ5 asin ⎜
⎣ ⎝ M5 ⎠

P2 ⎡ 2 + ( γ − 1) ⋅ ( M ⋅ sin( β ) ) 2 ⎤ γ
⋅⎢ ⎥
1 1
T2 := T1 ⋅ γ −1
⎢ ( 2 ⎥ ⎛ γ−1 ⎞
⎣ γ + 1) ⋅ ( M1 ⋅ sin( β 1) ) ⎦
P1
P04 P4 ⋅ ⎜ 1 + ⋅ M4 2
⎝ 2 ⎠
The leading edge of the lower surface of the engine inlet γ
intercepts the first oblique shock to capture the entire air flow 1−γ
rate and to deflect the flow back by 50 when entering the ⎛ γ−1 ⎞
P5 P04 ⋅ ⎜ 1 + ⋅ M5 2
scramjet, so that the shock reflection would terminate at the ⎝ 2 ⎠
upper edge of the engine inlet, and the flow through the
scramjet would become one-dimensional. The wave angle where ν4 is the Prandtl-Meyer function and P04 is the total
(β2) of the oblique shock reflected from the lower leading pressure at the engine exit.
edge of the engine inlet, the Mach number (M3), pressure (P3) Numerical results of these computations are summarized in
and temperature (T3) at the engine inlet are similarly the following table:
determined by the oblique shock relations.
The combustion process in the scramjet is simply modeled by Mach Wave Pressures Flow Rates Velocities
Rayleigh flow theory, that is, one-dimensional compressible Numbers Angles (kPa) (kg/s) (m/s)
flow with heat addition. Selecting a Mach number (M4 = 5) M2 = 8.42 β1 = 9.450 P2 = 3.45 m2 = 128.66 V2 = 2945
at the exit of the scramjet, the total temperature change, the
air flow rate and the rate of heat added can be determined M3 = 7.21 β2 = 10.430 P3 = 8.83 m3 = 128.66 V3 = 2907
from the Rayleigh Flow relations:
M4 = 5.0 µ4 = 11.530 P4 = 18.06 mfuel = 0.359 V4 = 2864
2
⎛ 1+ γ⋅M M4 ⎞ ⎡ 2 + ( γ − 1) ⋅ M4 2 ⎤
2
M5 = 6.3 µ5 = 9.130 P5 = 4.08 m4 = 129.02 V5 = 2965
T03 ⋅ ⎜ ⋅⎢ ⎥
3
T04 ⋅
⎜ ⎢ 2⎥
⎠ ⎣ 2 + ( γ − 1) ⋅ M3 ⎦
2 M3
⎝ 1 + γ ⋅ M4
With the wave angles known and the dimensions of the
γ scramjet engine already specified, the geometry of the entire
m3 P3 ⋅ A ⋅ M3 ⋅ vehicle can be determined. The overall length is 33.37 m and
R ⋅ T3
the total height is 2.42 m, including the height of the engine
(0.6 m). The slope of the trailing surface is found to be θ5 =
Q m3 ⋅ Cp ⋅ T04 − T03 ( ) 110.
Applying the momentum equations results in a net axial force
where Cp = 1.084 kJ/kg-K is the corrected specific heat of air (Thrust–Drag) = 2.16 kN, and a net normal force (Lift) = 28
at hypersonic speed. kN, which dictates the vehicle weight at the beginning of
The required flow rate of hydrogen fuel (with lower heating steady level flight. The location of center of mass of the
value LHV = 120 MJ/kg) can then be estimated, and the total vehicle is determined by a balance of pitching moments for
mass flow rate exiting the scramjet can be found: trimmed flight, and is found to be at 48% aft from the leading
edge.
Q
mf m4 m3 + mf It is seen that 2-D inviscid flow analysis shows that it is
LHV ,
possible to generate positive excess thrust with this simple
configuration. The dimensions, estimated cruise weight and
The expansion waves’ angles (µ4 , µ5) extending from the centre of gravity of the vehicle all seem to be reasonable. It
upper edge of the engine exit, the Mach number (M5) and does serve as an initial design for further modifications and
pressure (P5) along the trailing surface are simply determined design iterations into a 3-D configuration (Figure 7).
by the two-dimensional expansion wave theory:

µ4 asin ⎜
⎛ 1 ⎞ γ+1
G
⎝ M4 ⎠ , γ−1

⎛⎜ M 2 − 1 ⎞
4
ν4 G ⋅ atan⎜ − atan⎛ M4 2 − 1 ⎞
⎝ G ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

⎛⎜ M 2 − 1 ⎞
5
ν 4 + θ5 G ⋅ atan⎜ − atan⎛⎝ M5 2 − 1 ⎞⎠
⎝ G ⎠
Figure 7 Initial Confiruration
 13.2 2-D GHV Preliminary Simulation Results
Parallel to the analytical results described above
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations have been
conducted using Fluent, a commercially available CFD code
capable of simulating compressible flow coupled with
combustion to obtain the basic aerodynamic properties of the
2-D vehicle, the propulsion model and the coupling between
the two.
The GHV was modeled using a coupled solver with inviscid
flow, the density calculated from ideal gas law, specific heat
constant from the kinetic theory and a mesh containing
140,000 nodes. The model has been simulated over AoA
between negative and positive five degree at interval of one
degree, and over five different fuel flow rate (0 kg/s, 0.1 kg/s,
0.25 kg/s, 0.5 kg/s and 1 kg/s). To obtain an accurate model,
a mesh independency test was carried out at the design angle,
and the two extremities (positive and negative five degrees).
Once the optimum mesh was found, these where merged into
one, so that all scenarios from negative five degrees to
positive five degrees could be obtained with a single mesh
without the need of adaptation.
The model was simulated with inviscid flow. However, it is
believed that the viscous forces will increase both lift and
drag by significant amount. However, it was found that the
accuracy for inviscid flow was within a couple of percent in
this case.
The greatest challenge in modeling the GHV is anticipated to
be the inclusion of shock wave interaction on the engine
cowl and combustion coupling. This causes a twofold
difficulty in CFD modeling. The first is the computational
demand to model such scenarios and the second is the
simulation stability issues due to the high degree of coupling
between flow velocity, density, pressure and energy.
The stability of the solution can be addressed using a coupled
solver which allows the usage of the courant number, which
has a damping effect on the residual difference between
iterations and controlling the number of iterations required.
Figure 8 Preliminary 2-D Vehicle Simulation Results
The computational processing required is vast due to the
need of resolving the shock waves from the leading edge and
the injection. An effort is currently underway to separate the
engine and aircraft modeling while keeping account of the
dynamic interaction effects. The only effect of propulsion on
the aircraft is on the trailing edge, which is in effect the
engine nozzle.
Propulsion integration was implemented by using a 1-step
finite rate chemistry model and injecting hydrogen fuel from
the upper surface of the scramjet as a boundary condition.
Although the 1-step finite rate chemistry model is not the
most accurate chemistry model available for supersonic
combustion it has been shown in [126] that it provides close
agreement with experimental data and hence is adopted in
this study.
The preliminary computer simulation results are shown in
Figure 9. It shows the CFD results for the contours of mach
number, density, static temperature and mass fraction of H2O
(product of hydrogen combustion), both at the optimum
design of zero-degrees-AoA and at the off-design of five-
degree-AoA both with fuel flow rates of 0.1 kg/s.
The results for the zero-degree-AoA, are found to agree well
with theory. Special notice should be given to the angle of
the shock wave in comparison to the theoretical value noted
showing essentially an exact match with theory.
The off-design angle shows results that show, as expected,
degradation of aerodynamics and propulsion performance of
the vehicle. If compared the shock waves, best viewed
through the static temperature contours, from the leading
edge strike the tip of engine cowl, however for the off-design
angle, the shock wave misses the engine cowl edge.
The contours of H2O and temperature show that the
combustion products are highly concentrated along the upper
walls of the scramjet and nozzle due to the high speed of the
air flow through the engine, which forbids the fuel to
dissipate more uniformly into the scramjet. This undesirably
low combustion efficiency poses further challenge for
innovative design of fuel injection system.
Figure 9 shows the preliminary aerodynamic data for
CSULA-GHV including coefficient of lift, drag, and the
moment coefficient as function of angle of attach for Mach
10 for no fuel and 0.1kg/s, 0.5 kg/s, and 1.0 kg/s fuel ratio.
 No Fuel
130000
0.1 kg/s Fuel
0.5 kg/s Fuel IV. CONCLUSION
1 kg/s Fuel
80000
AHFV configurations with airframe integrated scramjets
form the basis for the current and foreseen AHF technology
30000 programs. On the other hand, almost all of the existing
Lift (N)

control designs in the open literature are based on the rigid

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-20000
0 1 2 3 4 5 winged-cone accelerator configuration, which does not
address all major dynamic characteristics of AHFVs like X-
-70000
30 or X-43A. Therefore, new designs based on realistic
models that address all the major issues in AHF dynamics are
needed.
-120000
Angle of Attack (Degrees)
The hypersonic flight control law design is also associated
with significant uncertainty. The two most dominant sources
No Fuel of uncertainty in AHF are the lack of sufficient data and
21000
0.1 kg/s Fuel
0.5 kg/s Fuel
ignored coupling effects. The first will be handled in time by
1 kg/s Fuel flight tests. For the second it is necessary to develop accurate
16000
simulation models quantify and elaborate the couplings and
include them in the system models. The correct tradeoff
11000 between the comprehensiveness of a model and complexity
Drag (N)

of designing/ implementing a controller based is the key in

6000
successful control system design.
A study has been initiated at Cal State LA in collaboration
1000 with USC and University of Kansa to design in-house a full-
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 scale airbreathing generic hypersonic cruise vehicle,
-4000
CSULA-GHV based on a set of broadly accepted
Angle of Attack (Degrees) requirements for such a vehicle. The GHV resembles
NASA’s X-43. As a first cut a 2-D model has been
1500000 No Fuel developed and preliminary simulation results are been
0.1 kg/s Fuel obtained.
0.5 kg/s Fuel
1000000 1 kg/s Fuel

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
500000
Pitch Moment

This project was supported by the United States Air Force

0
-5 -3 -1 1 3 5
under Grant No. F49620-01-1-0489 and by NASA Dryden
Flight Research Center under Grant No. NAG4-175.
-500000

-1000000

-1500000
Angle of Attack (Degrees)

No Fuel 8
0.1 kg/s Fuel
0.5 kg/s Fuel
1 kg/s Fuel 4

0
-120000 -80000 -40000 0 40000 80000 120000 160000
L/D

-4

-8

-12

-16
Lift

Figure 9 Preliminary Aerodynamic Data

 VI. REFERENCES
[1] Scientific Advisory Board, United States Air Force,
Washington, DC, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power
for 21st Century, 1995
[2] National Research Council, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, Hypersonic Technology for Military
Applications, 1989
[3] Naidu, D.S., Banda, S.S, and Buffington, J.L., “Unified
Approach to H2 and H∞ Optimal Control of a Hypersonic
Vehicle,” Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
San Diego, California, June 1999.
[4] Schmidt, D. K., Mamich, H., and Chavez, F., “Dynamics and
control of hypersonic vehicles, The integration challenge for
the 1990s,” AIAA Paper 91-5057, Dec. 1991.
[5] Chavez, F. R. and Schmidt, D. K., “Analytical
aeropropulsive/aeroelastic hypersonic-vehicle model with
dynamic analysis,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 17, No. 6, Nov. 1994, pp. 1308-1319.
[6] Bilimoria, K. D. and Schmidt, D. K., “Integrated
Development of the Equations of Motion for Elastic
Hypersonic Flight Vehicles,” AIAA Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 1, Jan. 1995, pp. 73-81.
[7] Chavez, F. R. and Schmidt, D. K., “Uncertainty modeling for
multivariable-control robustness analysis of elastic high-speed
vehicles,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 22, No. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 87-95.
[8] Fidan, B., Mirmirani, M., and Ioannou, P. A., “Flight
Dynamics and Control of Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicles:
Review and New Directions,” AIAA Paper 2003-7081, Dec.
2003.
[9] Freeman, D. C., Reubush, D. E., McClinton, C. R., Rausch,
V. L., and Crawford, J. L., “The NASA Hyper-X program,”
48th International Astronautical Congress, Oct. 1997.
[10] Curran, E. T., “Scramjet Engines: The first forty years,”
AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17, No. 6, Nov.
2001, pp. 1138-1148.
[11] Weber, R. J. and Mackay, J. S., “An Analysis of Ramjet
Engines Using Supersonic Combustion,” NACA TN 4386,
Sep. 1958.
[12] Dugger, G. L., “Comparison of hypersonic ramjet engines
with subsonic and supersonic combustion,” High Mach
Number Air-breathing Engines, Pergamon, Oxford, U.K.,
1961.
[13] Heiser, W. H., Pratt, D. T., Daley, D. H., and Mehta, U. B.,
editors, Hypersonic Air-breathing Propulsion, AIAA,
Washington, DC, 1994.
[14] Hallion, R. P., editor, The Hypersonic Revolution, Vol. Vol. I:
From Max Valier to Project PRIME (1924-1967), Air Force
History and Museums Program, Bolling AFB, DC, 1998.
[15] Hallion, R. P., editor, The Hypersonic Revolution, Vol. Vol.
II: From Scramjet to National Aero-Space Plane, (1964-
1986), Air Force History and Museums Program, Bolling
AFB, DC, 1998.
[16] Thompson, M. O., At the Edge of Space: The X-15 Flight
Program, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,
1992
[17] Henry, J. R. and Anderson, G. Y., “Design considerations for
the airframe-integrated scramjet,” NASA TM X-2895, 1973.
[18] Weidner, J. P., Small, W. J., and Penland, J. A., “Scramjet
Integration on Hypersonic Airplane Concepts,” AIAA Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 14, No. 5, May 1977, pp. 460-466.
[19] Northam, G. B. and Anderson, G. Y., “Supersonic
combustion research at Langley,” AIAA Paper 86-0159, Jan.
1986.
[20] Rogers, R. C., Capriotti, D. P., and Guy, R. W.,
“Experimental supersonic combustion research at NASA
Langley,” AIAA Paper 98-2506, June 1998.
[21] Schweikart, L., editor, The Hypersonic Revolution, Vol.
Volume III: The Quest for the Orbital Jet: The National Aero-
Space Plane Program (1983-1995), Air Force History and
Museums Program, Bolling AFB, DC, 1998.
[22] Voland, R. and Rock, K., “NASP concept demonstration
engine and subscale parametric engine tests,” AIAA Paper
95-6055, April 1995
[23] McRuer, D., “Design and modeling issues for integrated
airframe/propulsion control of Hypersonic Flight vehicles,”
Proc. American Control Conference, 1991, pp. 729-734.
[24] Schmidt, D. K., “Dynamics and control of hypersonic
aeropropulsive/aeroelastic vehicles,” AIAA paper 92-4326,
Aug. 1992.
[25] Schmidt, D. K., “Integrated control of hypersonic vehicles,”
AIAA paper 93-5091, Dec. 1993.32
[26] Chavez, F. R. and Schmidt, D. K., “An Integrated Analytical
Aeropropulsive/Aeroelastic for Dynamic Analysis of
Hypersonic Vehicles,” NASA ARC 92-2, June 1992.
[27] Schmidt, D. K. and Lovell, T. A., “Mission performance and
design sensitivities of air-breathing hypersonic launch
vehicles,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 34,
No. 2, March 1997, pp. 158-164.
[28] Schmidt, D. K., “Optimum mission performance and
multivariable flight guidance for Air-breathing launch
vehicles,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 6, Nov. 1997, pp. 1157-1164.
[29] Schmidt, D. K. and Hermann, J. A., “Use of energy-state
analysis on a generic air-breathing hypersonic vehicle,” AIAA
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 1,
Jan. 1998, pp. 71-76.
[30] Rausch, V. L., McClinton, C. R., and Crawford, J. L., “Hyper-
X: Flight validation of hypersonic air-breathing technology,”
XIII ISABE, ISABE 97-7024, Sept. 1997.
[31] McClinton, C. R., Rausch, V. L., Sitz, J., and Reukauf, P.,
“Hyper-X program status,” 10th AIAA/NAL/NASD-ISAS
International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and
Technologies Conference, AIAA 2001-1910, Apr. 2001.
[32] Hueter, U. and McClinton, C. R., “NASA's advanced space
transportation hypersonic program,” 11th AIAA/AAAF
International Conference, AIAA 2002-5175, 2002.
[33] Davidson, J., Lallman, F. J., McMinn, J. D., Martin, J., Pahle,
J., Stephenson, M., Selmon, J., and Bose, D., “Flight control
laws for NASA's Hyper-X research vehicle,” AIAA Paper 99-
4124, 1999.
[34] Rock, K. E., Voland, R. T., Rogers, R. C., and Huebner, L.
D., NASA's Hyper-X Scramjet Engine Ground Test
Program,” ISABE 99-7214, Sept. 1999.
[35] Engelund, W. C., Holland, S. D., Cockrell Jr., C. E., and
Bittner, R. D., “Propulsion System Air- frame Integration
Issues and Aerodynamic Database Development for the
Hyper-X Flight Research Vehicle,” ISOABE Paper 99-7215,
1999.
[36] Engelund, W. C., “Hyper-X Aerodynamics: The X-43A
Airframe- Integrated Scramjet Propulsion Flight-Test
Experiments,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.
38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 801-802.
[37] Engelund, W. C., Holland, S. D., Cockrell Jr., C. E., and
Bittner, R. D., “Aerodynamic Database Development for the
Hyper-X Airframe-Integrated Scramjet Propulsion
Experiments,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.
38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 803-810.
[38] Woods, W. C., Holland, S. D., and DiFulvio, M., “Hyper-X
Stage Separation Wind-Tunnel Test Program,” AIAA Journal
of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp.
811-819.
[39] Buning, P. G., Wong, T. C., Dilley, A. D., and Pao, J. L.,
“Computational Fluid Dynamics Pre-diction of Hyper-X
Stage Separation Aerodynamics,” AIAA Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 820-
827.
[40] Holland, S. D., Woods, W. C., and Engelund, W. C., “Hyper-
X Research Vehicle Experimental Aerodynamics Test
Program Overview,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 828-835. 33
[41] Cockrell Jr., C. E., Engelund, W. C., Bittner, R. D., Jentink, T.
N., Dilley, A. D., and Frendi, A., “Integrated Aeropropulsive
Computational Fluid Dynamics Methodology for the Hyper-
X Flight Experiment,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 836-843.
[42] Huebner, L. D., Rock, K. E., Ruf, E. G., Witte, D. W., and
Andrews Jr., E. H., “Hyper-X Flight Engine Ground Testing
for Flight Risk Reduction,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 844-852.
[43] Reubush, D. E., Martin, J. G., Robinson, J. S., Bose, D. M.,
and Strovers, B. K., “Hyper-X Stage Separation - Simulation
Development and Results,” AIAA 2001-1802, April 2001.
[44] Faulkner, R. F. and Weber, J. W., “Hydrocarbon Scramjet
Propulsion System Development, Demonstration, and
Application,” AIAA Paper 99-4922, 1999.
[45] White, D. A., Bowers, A., Iliff, K., and Menousek, J.,
Handbook of Intelligent Control: Neural, Fuzzy, and Adaptive
Approaches, chap. Flight, Propulsion, and Thermal Control of
Advanced Aircraft and Hypersonic Vehicles, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY, 1992, pp. 357-465.
[46] Bertin, J. J., Periaux, J., and Ballmann, J., editors, Advances
in Hypersonics, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1992.
[47] Anderson, Jr., J. D., Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas
Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1989.
[48] Bertin, J. J., Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics, AIAA,
Washington, DC, 1994.
[49] Johnson, P. J., Whitehead, Jr., A. H., and Chapman, G. T.,
“Fitting Aerodynamics and Propulsion in to the Puzzle,”
AIAA Aerospace America, Sept. 1987, pp. 32-34.
[50] Maus, J. R., Giffith, B. J., Szema, K. Y., and Best, J. T.,
“Hypersonic Mach Number and Real Gas Effects on Space
Shuttle Orbiter Aerodynamics,” AIAA Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, Vol. 21, No. 2, Nov. 1984, pp. 132-141.
[51] Raney, D. L., Phillips, M. R., and Person, L. H.,
“Investigation of Piloting Aids for Manual Control of
Hypersonic Maneuvers,” NASA Technical Paper 3525,
October 1995.
[52] Chalk, C. R., “Flying Qualities Criteria Review, Assessment
and Recommendations for NASP,” NASP CR-1065, NASP
JPO, Wright-Patterson AFB, 1989.
[53] McRuer, D. T. and Myers, T. T., “Considerations for the
Development of NASP Flying Qualities Specifications,” WL-
TR-92-3042, U.S. Air Force, 1992.
[54] Penland, J. A., Dinlon, J. L., and Pittman, J. L., “An Aero
Dynamic Analysis of Several Hypersonic Research Airplane
Concepts from M=0.2 to 6.0,” AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
15, No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 716-723.
[55] Whitehead, Jr., A. H., “NASP Aerodynamics,” AIAA Paper
89-5013, 1989.
[56] Walton, J. T., “Performance Sensitivity of Hypersonic
Vehicles to Change Angle of Attack and Dynamic Pressure,”
AIAA Paper 89-2463, 1989.
[57] Bushcek, H. and Calise, A. J., “Uncertainty modeling and
fixed-order controller design for a hypersonic vehicle model,”
AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20,
No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 42-48.
[58] Gupta, K. K., Voelker, L. S., Bach, C., Doyle, T., and Hahn,
E., “CFD-Based Aeroelastic Analysis of the X-43 Hypersonic
Flight Vehicle,” AIAA Paper 01-0712, 2001.
[59] Cowan, J. C., Arena, Jr., A. S., and Gupta, K. K.,
“Development of a Discrete-Time Aerodynamic Model for
CFD-Based Aeroelastic Analysis,” AIAA Paper 99-0765,
1999.
[60] Gupta, K. K. and Petersen, K. L., “Multidisciplinary
Aeroelastic Analysis of a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle,”
AIAA Paper 93-5028, Dec. 1993.
[61] Thuruthimattam, B., Friedmann, P., Powell, K., and
McNamara, J., “Aeroelasticity of a Generic Hypersonic
Vehicle,” AIAA Paper 2002-1209, 2002.
[62] Raney, D. L., Pototzky, A. S., and McMinn, J. D., “Impact of
Aero-Propulsive-Elastic Interactions on Longitudinal Flight
Dynamics of a Hypersonic Vehicle,” AIAA Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 32, March 1995.
[63] Lind, R., Buffington, J., and Sparks, A., “Multi-Loop
Aeroservoelastic Control of a Hypersonic Vehicle,” AIAA
Paper 99-4123, August 1999.
[64] Etkin, B., Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight, Wiley, New
York, 1972
[65] Meile, A., Flight Mechanics Vol. 1: Theory of Flight Paths,
Addison-WESLEY, Reading, MA, 1962.
[66] Bisplighoff, R.L. and Ashley, H., Principles of Aeroelesticity,
Wiley, New York, 1962.
[67] Mirmirani, M., Xu, H., and Choi, S., “Linear Quadratic
Gaussian Control of Coupled Aeroservoelastic of a Simple
Wing Model,” Technical Report 101-2000, California State
University, Los Angeles, December 2000.
[68] Shaughnessy, J. D., Pinckney, S. Z., McMinn, J. D., Cruz, C.
I., and Kelley, M. L., “Hypersonic Vehicle Simulation Model:
Winged-Cone Configuration,” NASA TM-102610, 1990.
[69] Gregory, I. M., Chowdhry, R. S., McMinn, J. D., and
Shaughnessy, J. D., “Hypersonic vehicle model and control
law development using H∞ and µ-synthesis,” NASA TM-
4562, 1994
[70] Brauer, G. L., Cornick, D. E., and Stevenson, R., “Capabilities
and Applications of the Program to Optimize Simulated
Trajectories(POST) - Program Summary Document,” NASA
CR-2770, 1977.
[71] Marrison, C. I. and Stengel, R. F., “Design of robust control
systems for a hypersonic aircraft,” AIAA Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 1, Jan. 1998,
pp. 58-63.
[72] Wang, Q. and Stengel, R. F., “Robust nonlinear control of a
hypersonic aircraft,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 4, July 2000, pp. 577-585.
[73] Stengel, R. F., Optimal Control and Estimation, Dover, New
York, NY, 1994.
[74] Ray, L. R. and Stengel, R. F., “Stochastic Robustness of
Linear-Time-Invariant Control Systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, Vol. 36, No. 1, January 1991, pp. 82-
87.
[75] Ray, L. R. and Stengel, R. F., “A Monte Carlo Approach to
the Analysis of Control System Robustness,” Automatica,
Vol. 29, No. 1, January 1993, pp. 229-236.
[76] Maciejowski, J. M., Multivariable Feedback Design,
Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, 1989.
[77] Zhou, K. and Doyle, J. C., Essentials of Robust Control,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
[78] Bowers, A. H. and Iliff, K. W., “Generic Hypersonic
Aerodynamic Model Example (GHAME) for computer
simulation,” NASA TM, NASA Ames-Dryden, Edwards,
CA, 1987.
[79] Bushcek, H. and Calise, A. J., “µ Controllers: Mixed and
Fixed,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 34-41.
[80] Young, P. M., “Controller Design with Mixed Uncertainties,”
Proc. American Control Conference, 1994, pp. 2333-2337.
[81] Lohsoonthorn, P., Jonckheere, E., and Dalzell, S.,
“Eigenstructure vs constrained H∞ design for hypersonic
winged cone,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 4, July 2001, pp. 648-658.
[82] Isidori, A., Nonlinear Control Systems, Springer-Verlag,
1997.
[83] Xu, H. and Mirmirani, M., “Robust adaptive sliding control
for a class of MIMO nonlinear systems,” AIAA Paper 2001-
4168, 2001.
[84] Xu, H., Leung, P., Mirmirani, M., Boussalis, H., and Ioannou,
P., “Adaptive sliding mode control of a hypersonic flight
vehicle,” Advances in Astronautical Sciences 108, Part 2,
2001, pp. 1947-1962.
[85] Mooij, E., “Numerical investigation of model reference
adaptive control for hypersonic aircraft,” AIAA Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 2, March
2001, pp. 315-323.
[86] Dewell, L. D. and Speyer, J. L., “Fuel-optimal periodic
control and regulation in constrained hypersonic flight,”
AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20,
No. 5, Sep. 1997, pp. 923-932.
[87] Chuang, C. H. and Morimoto, H., “Sub-optimal and optimal
periodic solutions for hypersonic transport,” Proc. American
Control Conference, June 1995, pp. 1186-1190.
[88] Naidu, D. S., Banda, S. S., and Buffington, J. L., “Unified
approach to H2 and H1 optimal control of a hypersonic
vehicle,” Proc. American Control Conference, June 1999, pp.
2737-2741.
[89] Austin, K. J. and Jacobs, P. A., “Application of genetic
algorithms to hypersonic flight control,” Proc. IFSA World
Congress and 20th NAFIPS International Conference, Vol. 4,
July 2001, pp. 2428-2433.
[90] Zhou, Z. and Lin, C. F., “Fuzzy logic based flight control
system for hypersonic transporter,” Proc. Conference on
Decision and Control, Dec 1997, pp. 2730-2735.
[91] Cox, C., Neidhoefer, J., Saeks, R., and Lendaris, G., “Neural
adaptive control of the LoFLYTE®,” Proc. American Control
Conference, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 2913-2917.
[92] Saeks, R., Neidhoefer, J., Cox, C., and Pap, R., “Neural
control of the LoFLYTE® aircraft,” Proc. IEEE Int.
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 4, Oct.
1998, pp. 3112-3117.
[93] Ogata, K., Modern Control Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
[94] Gibson, C., Neidhoefer, J., Cooper, S., Carlton, L., Cox, C.,
and Jorgensen, C., “Development and Flight Test of the X-
43A-LS Hypersonic Configuration UAV,” AIAA Paper
2002-3462, 2002.
[95] Neidhoefer, J., Gibson, C., Saeks, R., Cox, C., Kocher, M.,
and Hunt, L., “Accurate Automation Corporation's
LoFLYTE® Program,” AIAA Paper 2002-3502, 2002.
[96] Marren, D., Lewis, M., and Maurice, L. Q., “Experimentation,
test, and evaluation requirements for future air-breathing
hypersonic systems,” AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Vol. 17, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 1361-1365.
[97] Bowcutt, K. G., “Multidisciplinary optimization of air-
breathing hypersonic vehicles,” AIAA Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 17, No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 1184-1190.
[98] Krstić, M., Kanellakopoulos, I., and Kokotović, P. V.,
Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design, Wiley, New York,
NY, 1995.
[99] Krstić, M. and Deng, H., Stabilization of Nonlinear Uncertain
Systems, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
[100] Marino, R. and Tomei, P., Nonlinear Control Design -
Geometric, Adaptive, and Robust, Prentice-Hall, London,
UK, 1995.
[101] Qu, Z., Robust Control of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems,
Wiley, New York, NY, 1998.
[102] Isidori, A., Lamnabhi-Lagarrigue, F., and Respondek, W.,
editors, Nonlinear Control in the Year 2000, Springer-Verlag,
2001.
[103] Fidan, B., Kosmatopoulos, E. B., and Ioannou, P. A., “A
Switching Controller for Multivariable LTI Systems with
Known and Unknown Parameters,” Proc. 41st IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 4, 2002, pp. 4688-
4693.
[104] Hyde, R. A., editor, H1 Aerospace Control Design: A
VSTOL Flight Application, Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[105] Shamma, J. S. and Athans, M., “Analysis of Gain Scheduled
Control for Nonlinear Plants,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, Vol. 35, No. 8, August 1990, pp. 898-907.
[106] Shamma, J. S. and Athans, M., “Gain Scheduling: Potential
Hazards and Possible Remedies,” IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, June 1992, pp. 101-107.
[107] Rugh, W. J. and Shamma, J. S., “Research on Gain
Sceduling,” Automatica, Vol. 36, No. 10, October 2000, pp.
1401-1425.
[108] Wiśniewski, R., “Linear Time-Varying Approach to Satellite
Attitude Control Using Only Electro-magnetic Actuation,”
AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 23,
No. 4, July-Aug.2000.
[109] Zhu, J. J. and Mickle, M. C., “Missile Autopilot Design Using
a New Linear Time-Varying Control Technique,” AIAA
 Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 1997.
[110] Biannic, J. M., Apkarian, P., and Garrard, W. L., “Parameter
Varying Control of a High- Performance Aircraft,” AIAA
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 2,
March- April 1997.
[111] Tsakalis, K. S. and Ioannou, P. A., Linear Time Varying
Systems: Control and Adaptation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1993.
[112] Limanond, S. and Tsakalis, K., “Model reference adaptive
and nonadaptive control of linear time-varying plants,” IEEE
Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 45, 2000, pp. 1290-1300.
[113] Limanond, S. and Tsakalis, K. S., “Adaptive and nonadaptive
pole-placement control of multivariable linear time-varying
plants,” Int. J. of Control, Vol. 74, 2001, pp. 507-523.
[114] Zhang, Y., Fidan, B., and Ioannou, P. A., “Backstepping
Control of Linear Time Varying Systems with Known and
Unknown Parameters,” to appear in IEEE Trans. on
Automatic Control, 2003.
[115] Nijmeijer, H. and Fossen, T. I., editors, New Directions in
Nonlinear Observer Design, Springer-Verlag, 1999.
[116] Kokotović, P. and Arcak, M., “Constructive nonlinear control:
A historical perspective,” Automatica, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2001,
pp. 637-662.
[117] Arcak, M. and Kokotović, P., “Nonlinear observers: A circle
criterion design and robustness analysis,” Automatica, Vol.
37, No. 12, December 2001, pp. 1923-1930.
[118] C. I. Marrison and R. F. Stengel, Design of Robust control
system for a hypersonic aircraft, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1998.
[119] Q. Wang and R. F. Stengel, Robust Nonlinear Control of a
Hypersonic Aircraft, J. of Guidance, Control and Dynamics,
Vol. 23, No. 4, 2000.
[120] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied nonlinear control, Prentice
Hall, 1991
[121] P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1996.
[122] J.-J. E. Slotine and J. A. Coetsee, Adaptive Controller
Synthesis for Nonlinear Systems, Int. J. Control, Vol. 43, No.
6, 1986, pp. 1631-1651.
[123] Josue Cruz, “CFD-based Aerodynamic Coefficients and
Stability Derivatives for a Generic Hypersonic Air Vehicle,”
CSULA, 2003.
[124] Shahriar Keshmiri, “Six-DOF modeling and simulation
of a generic hypersonic vehicle for conceptual design
studies,” CSULA, 2004.
[125] Fluent 6.2.16 User Guide, Fluent Inc. Lebanon, NH
[126] P. Hyslop, “CFD Modeling of Supersonic Combustion
in a Scramjet Engine Thesis,” Aerophysics and Laser
Diagnostics Research Kaboratory, Australia National
University, 1998