Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2020), 33(10): 2510–2526

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Three-axis coupled flight control law design for

flying wing aircraft using eigenstructure assignment
method
Lixin WANG a, Ning ZHANG a, Ting YUE a, Hailiang LIU a,*, Jianghui ZHU b,
Xiaopeng JIA b

a
School of Aeronautics Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
b
Chinese Flight Test Establishment, Xi’an 710089, China

Received 6 August 2019; revised 17 September 2019; accepted 1 December 2019

Available online 18 June 2020

KEYWORDS Abstract Due to elimination of horizontal and vertical tails, flying wing aircraft has poor longitu-
Drag rudder; dinal and directional dynamic characteristics. In addition, flying wing aircraft uses drag rudders for
Eigenstructure assignment; yaw control, which tends to generate strong three-axis control coupling. To overcome these prob-
Flight control law; lems, a flight control law design method that couples the longitudinal axis with the lateral-
Flying wing; directional axes is proposed. First, the three-axis coupled control augmentation structure is speci-
Three-axis coupled fied. In the structure, a ‘‘soft/hard” cross-connection method is developed for three-axis dynamic
decoupling and longitudinal control response decoupling from the drag rudders; maneuvering turn
angular rate estimation and subtraction are used in the yaw axis to improve the directional damp-
ing. Besides, feedforward control is adopted to improve the maneuverability and control decoupling
performance. Then, detailed design methods for feedback and feedforward control parameters are
established using eigenstructure assignment and model following technique. Finally, the proposed
design method is evaluated and compared with conventional method by numeric simulations.
The influences of control derivatives variation of drag rudders on the method are also analyzed.
It is demonstrated that the method can effectively improve the dynamic characteristics of flying
wing aircraft, especially the directional damping characteristics, and decouple the longitudinal
responses from the drag rudders.
Ó 2020 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shield09@163.com (H. LIU).
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
1. Introduction
Flying wing aircraft lacks vertical and horizontal tails, which
leads to weak instability of the directional axis and degraded
longitudinal and lateral stability compared with conventional
aircraft. As a result, the modal characteristics of flying wing
aircraft cannot satisfy the aircraft flying quality requirements.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.016
1000-9361 Ó 2020 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft
In addition, flying wing aircraft is typically equipped with mul-
tiple sets of elevons and drag rudders to satisfy control power
demands for maneuverability.1–3 However, drag rudders have
strong three-axis aerodynamic forces and moment coupling
during deflection; the coupling will further degrade the flying
quality of flying wing aircraft.4–8 Therefore, it is necessary to
adopt an advanced flight control law to ensure that flying wing
aircraft exhibits excellent flying qualities and becomes truly
controllable aircraft.
Many studies have been conducted on the application of
modern flight control design methods to flying wing aircraft.
Christian et al. designed an attitude tracking control law for
flying wing aircraft with sliding-mode control.9 Andrew
designed an automatic gain scheduling flight control law for
flying wing aircraft using the Linear Parameter-Varying
(LPV) method.10 Anhtuan et al. designed a longitudinal and
lateral-directional decoupled control law for a flying wing
fighter based on the l synthesis method.11 Rowena et al.
obtained a stability augmentation control law for ICE aircraft
via the model predictive control method.12 However, the above
works did not strictly consider the aircraft flying quality spec-
ifications and the longitudinal and lateral-directional control
coupling that is caused by drag rudder deflection; hence, the
flying qualities and the dynamic decoupling performance of
flying wing aircraft cannot be guaranteed.
Flying-quality-based flight control law design is a trend in
the development of flight control.13–15 The Eigenstructure
Assignment (EA) design method could effectively integrate
the requirements of flying quality specifications and dynamic
decoupling into the control structure and the controller param-
eter design procedure, which is highly desirable for engineering
applications. For conventional aircraft, the EA method is
mainly used for lateral-directional control law design to realize
dynamic decoupling and satisfactory flying qualities, while the
longitudinal control law is typically designed via the PID
method.16–21 Refs. 22–28 adopted the Control Augmentation
System (CAS) design method for conventional aircraft and
conducted a series of studies on flight control law design for
flying wing aircraft. The results have demonstrated the satis-
factory performance of EA method. However, the main draw-
back of the CAS design method that is described above is that
lateral-longitudinal decoupled design cannot deal with the
longitudinal-directional control response coupling that is
induced by the drag rudder.
In addition, in the lateral-directional CAS structure, a high-
pass filter is often used in the directional feedback channel to
filter the steady-state yaw rate, thereby avoiding the generation
of unnecessary rudder deflection during maneuvering turns.
Nevertheless, the Dutch roll modal frequency of flying wing
aircraft is low due to the elimination of vertical tails. If a
high-pass filter is used in the directional feedback path of a fly-
ing wing aircraft, the effective feedback yaw rate will be par-
tially filtered, which will result in insufficient directional
damping and will degrade the flying qualities of the closed-
loop aircraft.29
Aimed at overcoming the poor Dutch roll modal character-
istics and the control coupling of the drag rudder, a longitudi-
nal and lateral-directional axes coupled flight control law
design method for flying wing aircraft is proposed. First, a
three-axis coupled control augmentation structure is estab-
lished based on the three-axis coupled dynamics of flying wing
aircraft. In the structure, ‘‘soft/hard” cross-connection design
2511
is adopted for three-axis dynamic decoupling and longitudinal
control response decoupling from the drag rudder. In addition,
maneuvering turn angular rate estimation and subtraction are
used in the directional feedback channel instead of a high-pass
filter to improve the damping characteristics of the Dutch roll
mode. To improve the maneuverability and control the decou-
pling effect of the aircraft, a feedforward control path is also
introduced in the control structure. Second, a detailed control
parameter design method for the three-axis coupled flight con-
trol law is developed. The feedback and feedforward control
parameters are designed via the EA and model following tech-
niques, which will guarantee that the control parameters sat-
isfy the requirements on the flying qualities and the dynamic
decoupling. Finally, a three-axis coupled control law design
example is presented using a flying wing aircraft. The accuracy
and effectiveness of the proposed method are evaluated via fly-
ing quality evaluation and closed-loop maneuver command
tracking, and the influences of control derivatives variation
of drag rudders on the control law are analyzed by perturbed
simulation.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows,
Section 2 introduces the three-axis coupled flight control law
design method in detail. A control design example for the pro-
posed method is presented in Section 3. Section 4 presents the
results of the flying quality evaluation, the control decoupling
effects and the performance variation of the design method
under control derivatives perturbation of drag rudders. Sec-
tion 5 presents the conclusions of the paper and summarizes
the advantages of the proposed method.
2. Three-axis coupled flight control law design
2.1. Three-axis coupled control augmentation structure design
The short-period modal characteristics of flying wing aircraft
are poor due to the elimination of horizontal tails. The safety
flight Angle of Attack (AOA) is small after the adoption of the
all-wing design.2 Therefore, the pitch axis control law for flying
wing shall use the AOA command structure, which can
improve the short-period modal characteristics and impose
strict operation restrictions on AOA. Due to the lack of verti-
cal tails, the Dutch roll modal characteristics of the flying wing
are degraded and the lateral-directional dynamic coupling is
strong. Hence, the lateral-directional control law should adopt
the combination of roll angle variation rate and sideslip angle
command structure. The advised control command structure
can improve the Dutch roll modal characteristics, alleviate
the dynamic coupling of the lateral-directional axes and ensure
that the aircraft has satisfactory lateral-directional control
response characteristics.
For the redundant multicontrol surfaces of flying wing air-
craft, it is necessary to preallocate the functions of control sur-
faces prior to designing the flight control law. In practical
applications, the functions of control surfaces are manually
decoupled, drag rudders are designated for yaw control,
inboard elevons are used for pitch control and outboard ele-
vons are used for roll control. In the following text, da , de
and dr will be used to represent three-axis equivalent control
surfaces such as conventional aircraft.
The conventional CAS design method assumes that the lon-
gitudinal and lateral-directional dynamics of aircraft are
2512
decoupled; hence, the longitudinal CAS and the lateral CAS
can be designed separately.13,30 However, the separated longi-
tudinal and lateral-directional control structure cannot con-
sider the control disturbance of the drag rudders to the
longitudinal axis and it is difficult to obtain satisfactory
three-axis control decoupling performance.
Therefore, this paper proposes a three-axis coupled CAS
design methodology for flying wing aircraft and attempts to
improve the dynamic characteristics of flying wing aircraft,
to decouple the longitudinal control response from the drag
rudder and to realize satisfactory maneuvering flight perfor-
mance simultaneously.
Fig. 1 illustrates the three-axis coupled control augmenta-
tion structure. Where a is the angle of attack; b is the sideslip
angle; /_ is the roll angle variation rate;p; q; r are the body-axis
angular rates; da ; de ; dr represent the control inputs of roll,
pitch and yaw axis; acmd ; bcmd ; /_ cmd are the command inputs;
K and Kf are the feedback and feedforward control
parameters.
The three-axis coupled control augmentation structure con-
sists of five main components, the yaw rate ‘‘washout” unit,
the control surface decoupling unit, the feedback control aug-
mentation loop, the maneuvering command tracking loop, and
the command feedforward path. The yaw rate ‘‘washout” unit
is mainly used to improve the damping characteristics of the
Dutch roll mode. Maneuvering turn angular rate estimation
and subtraction are used instead of high-pass filtering to
increase the effective feedback yaw rate. The control surface
decoupling unit can decouple the longitudinal control response
from the drag rudder by directly connecting the drag rudder
with the elevons that are dedicated for pitch control. The feed-
back stabilization loop is mainly used to improve the modal
characteristics of flying wing aircraft and to realize the decou-
pling of the three-axis dynamics. Integrator states are intro-
duced in the maneuvering command tracking loop to ensure
accurate tracking of the maneuvering command. The lateral-
directional states are fed back into the longitudinal channel
via the command tracking loop, which can improve the control
decoupling performance of the drag rudder. The command
feedforward path is used to appropriately shape the maneuver-
Fig. 1 Three-axis coupled control augmentation structure of flying wing aircraft.
L. WANG et al.
ing command to improve the command response speed of the
aircraft. Since the lateral and directional maneuvering com-
mands enter the longitudinal axis through the feedforward
path, the longitudinal steady-state response will be decoupled
from lateral-directional commands.
2.2. Alternative method to ‘‘wash out” the feedback yaw rate in
directional channel
Due to the low frequency of the Dutch roll mode and the lower
control effectiveness of the drag rudder compared to a conven-
tional rudder,7 the yaw axis of a flying wing aircraft requires
higher strength feedback signals. If a high-pass filter is used
on the yaw axis of the flying wing to filter the steady-state rate
during a maneuvering turn, it will cause partial feedback yaw
rate loss, thereby resulting in a substantial decrease in the
directional damping. To demonstrate the adverse effect of a
high-pass filter, Fig. 2 compares the sideslip angle b command
tracking performance of a flying wing aircraft with and with-
out a high-pass filter on the yaw axis.
The high-pass filter substantially reduces the directional
damping during maneuvering and, consequently, the flying
quality is degraded.
Various large transport aircraft with low Dutch roll fre-
quency estimate the maneuvering turn angular rate and sub-
tract it from the yaw axis in real time instead of using a
high-pass filter.29 For flying wing aircraft, this method can
be used to avoid the adverse effects of the high-pass filter on
flying quality. The method that is used to estimate the maneu-
vering turn angular rate and the instantaneous roll, pitch and
yaw rates is expressed in
8
> Xc ¼ nz gsin/=V
>
>
< p ¼ p þ X sinh
f c
ð1Þ
>
> q ¼ q  X c coshsin/
>
:
f
rf ¼ r  Xc coshcos/
where Xc is the maneuvering turn rate; nz represents the nor-
mal load; g is the acceleration of gravity; V is the airspeed; h
is the pitch angle; / is the roll angle; p; q; r are three-axis angu-
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft
Fig. 2 Comparison of influence of a high-pass filter on a
directional maneuver.
lar rates that are measured by an Inertial Measurement Unit
(IMU) in the instantaneous turning state; pf ; qf ; rf are the
three-axis feedback angular rate signals after the steady-state
angular rate components have been subtracted.
Fig. 3 compares the feedback signals from the high-pass fil-
ter and the maneuver angular rate estimation and subtraction
method. rf is the effective feedback yaw rate, r f is the yaw rate
that is filtered by the high-pass filter, rs is the steady-state yaw
rate component of the maneuvering turn rate, r is the yaw rate
that is measured by IMU, and s is the time constant of the
high-pass filter. Once the yaw rate r has been filtered by the
high-pass
  filter, partial feedback yaw signal loss will occur,
hence r 
f < jrf j, thereby resulting in insufficient yaw damping
of flying wing aircraft.
2.3. Dynamic responses decoupling based on ‘‘soft/hard” cross-
connections
Conventional aircraft often uses the ‘‘soft/hard” cross-
connection control method to realize satisfactory dynamic
decoupling performance.13,30 A ‘‘soft” cross-connection refers
to the feedback of the output signal from a channel of the air-
craft to another channel to realize dynamic decoupling or
Fig. 3 Comparison of yaw feedback signals for two angular rate
filtering methods.
2513
coordinated control. In a ‘‘hard” cross-connection, the control
surface command of a channel is fed into the control surfaces
of another channel directly. Since the ‘‘hard” cross-connection
method will connect related control surfaces directly, it has fas-
ter control response speed than ‘‘soft” cross-connection; how-
ever, the control command from ‘‘hard” cross-connection is
typically not sufficiently smooth. The two cross-connection
control methods can be used separately or simultaneously to
ensure the decoupling of the aircraft dynamics.
To solve the three-axis dynamic coupling problem of flying
wing aircraft that is caused by the drag rudder, a ‘‘soft” cross-
connection design is used to decouple the dynamics of the
pitch, roll and yaw axes. Then the drag rudders are ‘‘hard”
cross-connected to inboard elevons to realize longitudinal
and directional control decoupling. The three-axis dynamic
decoupling theory that is based on the cross-connection
method is illustrated in Fig. 4, where Gðda Þ represents the con-
trol relationship of the outboard elevons with the roll angle
variation rate, Gðdr Þ represents the relationship of the drag
rudder deflection with the sideslip angle, Gðde Þ represents the
pitch control relationship of the inboard elevons with AOA,
F1 represents the coupling relationship of the yaw axis with
the roll angle variation rate, F2 represents the coupling rela-
tionship of the roll axis with the sideslip angle, and F3 repre-
sents the coupling relationship of the yaw axis with AOA.
The lateral and directional control coupling that is induced
by the drag rudder can be decoupled by introducing negative
G1, G2 and G3 feedbacks on the yaw, roll and pitch axes, while
the directional and longitudinal axes mainly use ‘‘hard” cross-
connection G4 to eliminate the control coupling.
EA is used to design the ‘‘soft” cross-connection decoupling
parameters, namely, G1, G2 and G3. And the detailed design
routine of EA method will be described in the next section.
The yaw-pitch ‘‘hard” cross-connection decoupling param-
eter, namely G4, can be solved based on the following
relationship
F3
G4  Gðde Þ þ F3 ¼ 0 ) G4 ¼  ð2Þ
Gðde Þ
2.4. EA-based three-axis coupled control design
For conventional aircraft, the EA method is typically used to
design lateral-directional CAS to improve the modal charac-
teristics and realize satisfactory control decoupling perfor-
mance of the roll-yaw axes. For flying wing aircraft, to
overcome the problem of three-axis dynamic coupling that is
caused by the drag rudder, this paper proposes a three-axis
coupled EA design method for decoupling the aircraft’s con-
trol responses from the drag rudder.
When designing actual flight control systems, the require-
ments for state feedback design are typically difficult to satisfy.
Thus, the output feedback EA method is used to design the
feedback control parameters for the three-axis coupled flight
control law. The related theory and detailed design routine
of the method can be found in Ref. 31. The following figure
illustrates the procedure for designing a three-axis coupled
control law via the EA method.
According to the design procedure in Fig. 5, prior to
designing the control parameters for flying wing aircraft, the
command tracking integrators in Fig. 1 and three-axis coupled
2514 L. WANG et al.

Fig. 4 Dynamic decoupling theory of flying wing aircraft.

Fig. 5 Three-axis coupled EA design procedure.

2 3
dynamic model must jointly establish an augmented state 1 0 0 0 0
space model for the aircraft. 6 7
60 1 0 0 07
6 7
First, according to the three-axis coupled control augmen- Cc ¼ 6
60 0 1 0 077
tation structure of the flying wing aircraft, the AOA, sideslip 6 7
angle, roll rate, pitch rate and yaw rate are selected as the state 40 0 0 1 05
variables and the three-axis control variables are selected as da , 0 0 0 0 1
de and dr , which represent inboard elevons for roll control, out- Detailed expressions of the derivative terms in the coupled
board elevons for pitch control and the drag rudders for yaw model can be found in Ref. 13 or Ref. 30. In system matrix Ac ,
control, respectively. Then, the fifth-order linear dynamic the longitudinal and lateral-directional coupled force Zb and
model that combines the longitudinal and lateral-directional 
axes is established in matrix form moment Mb that are induced by sideslip angle change under

 dx small AOA are considered.8 The derivative terms Zdr , Ydr ,
¼ Ac x þ B c u 
dt
ð3Þ Mdr and Ldr in the control effectiveness matrix Bc are addi-
y ¼ Cx
tional aerodynamic force and moment control derivatives that
In Eq. (3),x ¼ ½a; b; p; q; r, u ¼ ½da ; de ; dr , are induced by the drag rudders.
2 3 Based on the coupled dynamic model, the augmented air-
Za Zb 0 1 0
6 0 craft state space model is established as follows:
6 Yb a þ Yp 0 Yr  1 7 7
6    7
6 0 Lr 7
Ac ¼ 6 Lb Lp 0 7
6    7
6 M 0 7
4 a Mb 0 Mq 5
  
0 Nb Np 0 Nr
ð4Þ
2 3
0 Zde Zdr
6  7
6 Yda 0 Ydr 7
6 7
6  7
Bc ¼ 6 Lda 0 Ldr 7
6 7
6 0 Mdr 7
4 Mde 5
  where h represents the pitch attitude of the aircraft at trimmed
Nda 0 Ndr wing level flight, x1 ; x2 ; x3 represent the command tracking
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft
integrator states for the AOA, sideslip angle, and roll angle
variation rate, respectively.
Since new integrator states are introduced into the aug-
mented longitudinal and lateral-directional coupled model,
the output matrix Cc of the coupled model must also be
expanded
ð5Þ
According to the modal characteristics requirements for
longitudinal and lateral-directional axes that are specified in
aircraft flying quality specifications32 and the three-axis cou-
pled control law structure, the eigenvalues that must be
assigned in the closed-loop aircraft system are the short-
period mode, the roll mode, the Dutch roll mode, and the lon-
gitudinal and lateral-directional three-axis command tracking
integrators. Due to the integrator in the forward path of the
roll axis command structure, the closed-loop aircraft system
always has a zero eigenvalue that corresponds to the spiral
mode; hence, the spiral mode is neutrally stable.
To realize three-axis dynamic decoupling and control
decoupling on the drag rudders, the eigenvectors of the
closed-loop aircraft system should be assigned properly.
The three-axis dynamic decoupling design needs to properly
assign the corresponding eigenvectors of the longitudinal
and lateral-directional states. The control decoupling design
is mainly used to reduce the adverse interference of the drag
rudder deflection on the roll and pitch axes when performing
a maneuvering task. It can be realized by assigning the eigen-
vectors that correspond to the eigenvalues of the command
tracking integrators. Therefore, the desired eigenvector struc-
ture Vd that satisfies the decoupling requirements is as
follows
ð6Þ
where ‘‘x” represents an eigenvector element that is not of
interest and ‘‘000 and ”100 represent the state elements that are
designed according to modal decoupling requirements; VSP ,
VR and VDR represents the desired eigenvectors of the short-
period mode, the roll subsidence mode, and the Dutch roll
mode, respectively; Vx1 , Vx2 and Vx3 are the desired eigenvec-
tors that correspond to the integrator eigenvalues of the pitch,
yaw and roll axes.
In the three-axis coupled control augmentation structure,
due to the elimination of the high-pass filter in the yaw axis,
the output variables of the aircraft system are consistent with
the state variables. Thus, the output feedback EA method
can accurately assign all the closed-loop system eigenvalues.
Although the assigned closed-loop system eigenvectors usually
have minor differences from the expected eigenvectors, the
coupling degrees of closed-loop aircraft can be substantially
reduced.31
2515
2.5. Command enhancement and feedforward decoupling design
based on model following
After adopting the EA design, the control response speed of
closed-loop aircraft to maneuvering commands remains slow.
However, the response speed can be improved by adding a
command feedforward compensator to properly shape the
control input, while the stability of the closed-loop aircraft sys-
tem is not affected. For the three-axis control coupling effect
of the drag rudder, a cross feedforward design of the yaw-
pitch axis and the yaw-roll axis can be used to realize input
decoupling of three-axis control commands and to reduce
the handling disturbance of the drag rudder. When designing
the feedforward compensator, the closed-loop aircraft system
structure that is illustrated in Fig. 6 should be used.
In Fig. 6, A, B and C are the longitudinal and lateral-
directional coupled dynamic model matrices of the flying wing
aircraft; H is the observer matrix for the aircraft states that are
expected to be tracked; um represents the reference input com-
mands; x represents the aircraft states; u denotes the control
inputs; y denotes the measurable outputs; z denotes the aircraft
responses that are expected to be tracked; Kf is the feedforward
compensator; K is the control gain of the feedback augmenta-
tion loop, which is illustrated in Fig. 1 and is calculated via the
output feedback EA method.
To calculate the feedforward compensator Kf, assume that
the ideal aircraft state space model with desired dynamic char-
acteristics is

x_ m ¼ Am xm þ Bm um
ð7Þ
ym ¼ Cm xm þ Dm um
where Am, Bm, Cm and Dm are state-space matrices for the
ideal aircraft model, xm represents the states of the ideal
model, and ym denotes the outputs of the ideal model. The
state variables and control variables of the controlled aircraft
system can be represented by ideal models and error vectors

x ¼ S11 xm þ S12 um þ dx
ð8Þ
u ¼ S21 xm þ S22 um þ du
In Eq. (8), dx is the state error vector; du is the control input
error vector; the relationship between the control input error
vector and the state error vector is du ¼ KCdx; S11, S12, S21
and S22 are unknowns that need to be solved. Via proper
derivation,33 we obtain the following
     
S11 0 Am Bm A B S11 S12
¼ ð9Þ
0 I Cm Dm H 0 S21 S22
For general aircraft dynamic equations, the matrix that
consists of A, B and H in Eq. (9) is typically nonsingular
and its inverse matrix can be partitioned as
Fig. 6 Feedforward control structure.
2516 L. WANG et al.
   1
X11 X12 A B
X¼ ¼ ð10Þ
X21 X22 H 0
where X represents the inverse of the matrix that consists of A,
B and H, and X11 , X12 , X21 and X22 are the partitioned sub-
matrices of X. To simplify the calculation, assume that the
feedforward compensator Kf is pure gain and that the outputs
ym of the ideal model can track command input signals um
directly. Then, the ideal state space model can be set to
Am ¼ 0; Bm ¼ 0; Cm ¼ 0; Dm ¼ I ð11Þ Fig. 7 Control surface configurations of example flying wing
Substituting Eqs. (10) and (11) into Eq. (9) yields the fol- aircraft.
lowing values of S11, S12, S21 and S22
S11 ¼ 0; S12 ¼ X12 ; S21 ¼ 0; S22 ¼ X22 ð12Þ
Table 1 Typical static stability derivatives.
Substituting the result in Eq. (12) into Eq. (8) yields the
Trimmed a (°) Cma Clb Cnb
control inputu
1.6 0.0191 0.0246 0.0043
u ¼ KCx þ ðX22  KCX12 Þum ð13Þ
In Eq. (13), the control input u of the aircraft consists of
two parts, the former part represents the output feedback from
the control system and the latter part represents the shaping of Under the typical flight condition, the longitudinal and
the command input signal from the feedforward gain matrix. lateral-directional coupled dynamic model is shown in Eq.
Thus, the feedforward gain Kf can be expressed as (15), and when the sideslip angle changes, it will perturb the
longitudinal dynamic and cause longitudinal and lateral-
Kf ¼ X22  KCX12 ð14Þ directional dynamic coupling. The typical dynamic modes of
the example aircraft are given in Table 2.
3. Three-axis coupled control law design example 2 3
0:9626 0:1736 0 1 0
6 7
6 0 0:0131 0:0301 0 0:9995 7
To evaluate the performance of the three-axis coupled flight 6 7
Ac ¼ 66 0 27:2058 12:9393 0 2:5551 77
control law design method, a three-axis coupled CAS is 6 7
designed for an example flying wing aircraft, the flying quality 4 35:9530 1:7764 0 5:2812 0 5
and the control decoupling effect of the closed-loop aircraft 0 4:3583 1:9792 0 0:2942
2 3
are evaluated, and the influences of control derivatives varia- 0 0:1911 0:0033
tion of drag rudders on the three-axis coupled control law 6 7
6 0 0 0:0024 7
are analyzed by parameter perturbed simulation. 6 7
Bc ¼ 66 136:1101 0 4:0272 77 ð15Þ
6 7
3.1. Dynamic characteristic analysis of example aircraft 4 0 116:9258 3:8804 5
0:9270 0 5:0404
The example flying wing aircraft is illustrated in Fig. 7. It is The dynamic modes in Table 2 demonstrate that the short-
equipped with two sets of elevons and a set of split drag rud- period mode of the example aircraft is unstable, whereas the
ders. The control functions of the control surfaces are allo- roll mode characteristics are relatively satisfactory and the
cated via manual decoupling, the inboard elevons are mainly Dutch roll mode is dynamically unstable. Therefore, the design
used for pitch control, and symmetric downward deflection of CAS must focus on improving the short-period mode and
is defined as positive deflection; the outboard elevons are used the Dutch roll mode characteristics of the example aircraft
for roll control via differential deflecting, and deflection of the to satisfy the flying quality specifications.
left elevon upward and of the right elevon downward is defined The split drag rudders of flying wing aircraft will produce
as positive deflection. The split drag rudders are dedicated for strong three-axis coupling of forces and moments during
yaw control, with the open left side control surface defined as deflection, and the strong coupling characteristics have been
positive deflection. thoroughly analyzed in Ref. 7. Fig. 8 plots the three-axis
Considering typical flight condition (Ma = 0.5 and moment control coefficients of the split drag rudders for the
H = 5 km) as an example, the static stability derivatives and example aircraft under typical flight condition.
typical dynamic modes of the aircraft are listed in Table 1. According to Fig. 8, as the drag rudder deflection increases,
Where Cma is the longitudinal static stability derivative, Clb is the coupling control coefficients of the pitch and roll axes
the lateral static stability derivative, Cnb is the directional static become significant. When the split drag rudder deflects posi-
stability derivative. tively, it generates a negative roll moment coefficient; hence,
According to Table 1, the example aircraft is longitudinal the aircraft tends to roll off to the split rudder opened side,
unstable, due to the lack of vertical tails, the yaw axis of the and regardless of whether the split rudder is deflecting posi-
example aircraft exhibits typical weak static instability charac- tively or negatively, it generates a positive pitching moment
teristics of the flying wing, and the static stability of the lateral coefficient, which indicates that the aircraft tends to pitch
axis is reduced compared to conventional aircraft. up. Although the absolute values of the roll and pitch moment
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft 2517

Table 2 Typical dynamic modes. Table 3 Desired eigenvalues of closed-loop aircraft.

Eigenvalue Damping Mode Flying quality Name Eigenvalue
ratio level Short-period mode ksp 2.5 ± 2.5i
9.4768 1 Roll mode kr 3.0
3.3027 1 Short-period Below level 3 Dutch roll mode kdr 0.9 ± 1.0i
12.0303 1 Roll subsidence Level 1 Pitch axis integrator kx1 0.4
3.7145 1 Roll axis integrator kx2 0.45
2.4286 Dutch roll Below level 3 Yaw axis integrator kx3 0.25

Therefore, the ‘‘hard” cross-connection decoupling parameter

must use the gain scheduling design in practical applications.

3.2.2. Control parameters for ‘‘soft” cross-connection

decoupling, stabilization and command tracking
The desired eigenvalues of closed-loop aircraft are listed in
Table 3, which are determined based on the aircraft flying
quality specifications for the category B phase.32 The integra-
tor eigenvalues of the pitch, roll and yaw axes are assigned
according to Ref. 34. The desired eigenvectors of closed-loop
aircraft are consistent with Eq. (6).
The closed-loop aircraft eigenvectors VA, the ‘‘soft” cross-
connection decoupling and stabilization control gain K and
the command tracking gain Ki are obtained via the three-axis
coupled EA design method and are expressed as follows,
Fig. 8 Moment control coefficients of split rudder.

ð17Þ

coefficients that are generated by the split rudder are small, it

still has a substantial impact on the roll and pitch dynamics ð18Þ
during cruising flight and degrades the flying quality of the
aircraft.

3.2. Control law parameter design

3.2.1. Decoupling parameters of ‘‘hard” cross-connections
According to the decoupling method of the drag rudder that is
presented in Section 2.3, the yaw-pitch axis adopts a ‘‘hard”
cross-connection design. The cross-connection parameter Kr2e
is calculated as:
Kr2e ¼ Mdr =Mde  0:0332
The derivative term Mdr in Eq. (16) is the pitch moment
derivative that is induced by the drag rudder, which varies
nonlinearly with the AOA and the drag rudder deflection.
ð19Þ
ð20Þ
ð16Þ
By analyzing the control gain K, it is observed that the side-
slip angle and the yaw rate are fed back into the roll axis to
realize yaw-roll axis ‘‘soft” cross-connection decoupling. Fur-
2518
ther analysis of the control gains K and Ki reveals that some
lateral-directional states of the aircraft, such as the sideslip
angle and the yaw rate, are fed back into the pitch axis; in
the command tracking path, the error integrals of the sideslip
angle and the roll angle variation rate are also fed back into
the pitch axis. Since these lateral state variables are fed back
into the longitudinal channel of the aircraft, when drag rud-
ders deflect and cause changes in the lateral-directional states,
the inboard elevons can actively deflect to reduce the adverse
interference of the drag rudders with longitudinal motion
and to realize superior aircraft dynamic decoupling
performance.
3.2.3. Feedforward control parameters
For the example aircraft, using model following method
described in Section 2.5 and the calculated feedback control
gain K, the feedforward gain is calculated as
The feedforward gain Kf of the example aircraft is a 3  3
matrix. According to an analysis of the matrix elements, the
yaw-roll axis of the closed-loop aircraft has a cross feedfor-
ward relationship, which ensures yaw or roll steady-state
response decoupling from the roll or yaw command inputs.
The roll and yaw maneuvering commands are fed forward into
the pitch axis, and thus, when performing yaw or roll maneu-
vers, the pitch steady-state response will be decoupled from the
yaw or roll maneuver command and the interference of the
drag rudder control coupling with the longitudinal motion will
be reduced.
If the response characteristics of the closed-loop aircraft are
unsatisfactory after the addition of the forward proportional
gain, the gain values can be adjusted to satisfy the accuracy
requirements for command tracking.
4. Flying quality evaluation and numerical simulation
verification
4.1. Flying quality evaluation
For the flying quality evaluation of high-order closed-loop air-
craft, the Low-Order Equivalent System (LOES) matching
method is recommended in aircraft flying quality specifications
for conventional aircraft.35 However, due to the non-negligible
differences in the stability and control characteristics between
flying wing aircraft and conventional aircraft, the LOES
matching method for conventional aircraft is not fully applica-
ble to flying wing aircraft. Therefore, the improved LOES
matching method for flying wing aircraft in Ref. 36 is used
to perform the flying quality evaluation of the example
aircraft.
The CAS for example aircraft is designed via the three-axis
coupled control design method, which mainly focuses on
improving the insufficient directional damping of flying wing
aircraft. To compare the three-axis coupled control design
method and the conventional lateral-longitudinal decoupled
design method (which are hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘cou-
pled method” and the ‘‘normal method”) in terms of perfor-
mance in improving the flying quality of flying wing aircraft,
a standalone lateral-directional CAS is designed for the exam-
ple aircraft using the lateral-directional control augmentation
structure of conventional aircraft13 and the same control
design objectives as the ‘‘coupled method”.
L. WANG et al.
Under a typical flight state (Ma = 0.5 and H = 5 km) and
using the improved LOES matching method, the lateral-
directional and longitudinal LOES models of the example air-
craft for the ‘‘coupled method” are obtained, as presented in
Tables 4 and 5. For comparison, the lateral-directional LOES
models for the ‘‘normal method” are also presented in Table 4.
According to the lateral-directional LOES models in
Table 4, the flying quality evaluation results for the two design
methods are calculated and listed in Table 6. According to the
results, both of the design methods can ensure that the exam-
ple aircraft satisfies the requirements of Level 1 flying quality.
In the evaluation results, the differences in the roll modal char-
acteristics are minor; however, under the same control law
design objective, the Dutch roll modal damping for the ‘‘nor-
mal method” is only 0.47, whereas for the ‘‘coupling method”,
the damping is improved to 0.61, which represents an increase
of approximately 30%. In addition, the Dutch roll mode eigen-
values of the closed-loop aircraft are closer to the design objec-
tives than those of the ‘‘normal method”.
According to longitudinal LOES models in Table 5, the
evaluation parameters of the Control Anticipation Parameter
(CAP) criterion are calculated, which are listed in Table 7.
The evaluation results demonstrate that the equivalent CAP
parameters and the equivalent short-period modal characteris-
tics of the closed-loop aircraft satisfy the level 1 flight quality
requirements.
In conclusion, the CAS that was designed via the ‘‘coupled
method” can ensure that the three axes of flying wing aircraft
satisfy the level 1 flying quality requirements and the direc-
tional damping characteristics can be substantially improved.
Meanwhile, the ‘‘coupled method” assigns the closed-loop
eigenvalues more accurately, which avoids the subsequent iter-
ative design of the ‘‘normal method”.
4.2. Evaluation of control decoupling performance
Currently, there is no quantitative standard in the aircraft fly-
ing quality specifications for evaluating the decoupling perfor-
mance of the drag rudder. Thus, a closed-loop command
tracking simulation is used to evaluate the control decoupling
performance of the proposed method and the differences in the
aircraft maneuvering response characteristics under the CASs
that were designed via the two methods are compared and ana-
lyzed. Since the control coupling is mainly generated by the
deflection of the drag rudder, the following text will focus on
analyzing the decoupling performance of the ‘‘coupled meth-
od” in yaw maneuver and coordinated turn maneuver
simulations.
4.2.1. Yaw axis maneuvering command tracking
Under the cruise state of Ma = 0.5 and H = 5 km, using the
CASs that were designed via the above two methods, the state

responses of the example aircraft tracking b ¼ 3 step com-
mand and the variations of three-axis control surface deflec-
tion are plotted in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9(a) shows that both of the design methods realize
accurate tracking of the sideslip angle command. According
to Fig. 9(b), when using the ‘‘normal method”, the tracking
sideslip angle command generates an AOA disturbance with
a maximum amplitude of approximately 0.5° and slow conver-
gence, whereas for the ”coupled method‘‘, the disturbed ampli-
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft 2519

Table 4 Lateral-directional LOES results.

Method LOES model Mismatch parameterMr
8
>
2 þ1:751sþ1:309Þ
< /_
/ðsÞ
¼ ðsþ3:168Þ 5:7253ðs e0:029s
ðsÞ
cmd ðsþ8:137106 Þðs2 þ1:648sþ1:813Þ
Coupling method > 4:9791106 ðsþ4:233105 Þðsþ3:767Þðsþ8:137106 Þ 0:051s 3.5
: b bðsÞðsÞ ¼ e
cmd ðsþ3:168Þðsþ8:137106 Þðs2 þ1:648sþ1:813Þ
8
< /ðsÞ 5:9059ðs þ1:411sþ1:207Þs
2
¼ ðsþ2:849Þðsþ0:002111Þðs 2 þ1:199sþ1:641Þ e
0:03s
/_cmd ðsÞ
Normal method : bðsÞ 5
ðsþ4:23510 Þðsþ1:774Þðsþ0:005444Þ 0:046s
4 7.8
bcmd ðsÞ ¼ 5:622810
ðsþ2:849Þðsþ0:002111Þðs2 þ1:199sþ1:641Þ
e

aircraft is in steady wing level flight and a square wave com-

Table 5 Longitudinal LOES result.
Method LOES model
(
Coupling qðsÞ
acmd ðsÞ ¼ 13:423ðsþ0:2945Þ
s2 þ4:523sþ12:63
e0:043s
method
aðsÞ
acmd ðsÞ ¼ 12:888
s2 þ4:523sþ12:63
e0:029s
tude of AOA is less than 0.1° and the disturbance converges
quickly. These differences can be well explained by the control
surface deflection that is presented in Fig. 9(c), (d). At the ini-
tial stage of the simulation, when using the ”coupled method‘‘,
the sideslip angle command enters the inboard elevons through
the feedforward channel, which alleviates the initial tendency
of AOA increasing. As the deflection of the drag rudder con-
tinues to increase, the inboard elevons deflect in coordination
with the drag rudders since they are directly ‘‘hard” cross-
connected; therefore, the pitch control disturbance from the
drag rudder is effectively suppressed and the variation of
AOA is small.
According to the numerical simulation results that are pre-
sented above, by using the three-axis coupled design method,
the pitch and yaw axes of the aircraft can better control the
decoupling effects during a yaw maneuver.
4.2.2. Coordinated turn simulation
To further evaluate the dynamic decoupling and maneuver
decoupling performance of the ‘‘coupled method”, a coordi-
nated turn maneuver is used to evaluate the proposed method.
The baseline flight state and CASs are the same as in the pre-
vious section. At the initial time of the simulation, the example
mand with amplitude /_ ¼ 18ð Þ=s and width 3 s is applied to
Mismatch the roll axis, while the pitch and yaw axes maintain trimmed
parameter Mr inputs. The simulation results of the two methods are plotted
10.8 in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10(a) shows that using the CASs that are designed by
the two methods can guarantee accurate tracking of the roll
angle variation rate command. In Fig. 10(c), when using the
‘‘normal method”, the convergence speed of the disturbed side-
slip angle is substantially lower than that of the ‘‘coupled
method”. The discrepancy is illustrated by the yaw rate com-
parison of the two methods in Fig. 10(f). When using the ‘‘cou-
pled method”, the effective feedback yaw rate signal strength is
increased due to the cancellation of the directional high-pass
filter; hence, the directional damping characteristic is
improved. As a result, the oscillatory amplitude of the yaw rate
is reduced and the convergence rate of the disturbed sideslip
angle is increased.
During coordinated turn maneuvering, since the command
amplitude of the roll angle variation rate is large, the coordi-
nated deflection of the drag rudder is also large, as shown in
Fig. 10(i). According to Fig. 10(b), when the ‘‘normal method”
is used, the control disturbance from the drag rudder induces a
long-time AOA oscillation motion with a maximum amplitude
of 1.5° and the pitch angle changes abruptly. When using the
‘‘coupled method”, the AOA variation is less than 0.1°, there
is no obvious oscillatory motion of the AOA, and the pitch
angle changes smoothly. As shown in Fig. 10(h), since the
inboard elevons and the drag rudder are ‘‘hard” cross-
connected in the ‘‘coupled method”, the inboard elevons will
deflect in coordination with the drag rudder, which effectively
eliminates the longitudinal disturbance that is induced by the

Table 6 Lateral-directional flying quality evaluation results.

Method TR (s) Ts - double (s) nd xnd (rad/s) nd  xnd (rad/s) sep (s) seb (s) Flying quality level
Coupling method 0.3157 0.6120 1.3465 0.8240 0.029 0.051 Level 1
Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
Normal method 0.3510 0.4679 1.2813 0.5995 0.03 0.049 Level 1
Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1

Table 7 Longitudinal flying quality evaluation results.

Evaluation parameter CAP nsp xsp (rad/s) Dnz =Da se (s) CAP criterion level
Level 3.51 (Level 1) 0.6363 (Level 1) 3.55 (Level 1) 3.6 0.0434 (Level 1) Level 1
2520
Fig. 9 Numerical simulation of maneuvering command tracking of yaw axis.
drag rudder. As the lateral and directional axes are ‘‘soft”
cross-connected in the ‘‘coupled method”, the coordinated
deflection of the drag rudder effectively reduces the adverse
interferences with the lateral response; hence, the ‘‘coupled
method” outperforms the ‘‘normal method” in terms of the
tracking performance of the roll angle variation rate command
and the roll angle changes more smoothly, as depicted in
Fig. 10(a) and (e).
In summary, flying wing aircraft can realize improved
dynamic decoupling and control decoupling performance by
using the ‘‘coupled method”. Moreover, designing the CAS
via the three-axis coupled control method is a better choice
for satisfying the flight mission requirements.
4.3. Influences of control derivative perturbations of drag rudders
on the flight control law
Due to the unique tailless aerodynamic configuration, the
dynamic characteristics of flying wing aircraft are significantly
different from those of conventional aircraft. Therefore, when
selecting the uncertainty parameters for perturbation analysis,
we prefer to choose aerodynamic parameters and evaluate the
control augmentation and decoupling effects of the three-axis
coupled flight control law under variation of aerodynamic
characteristics.
L. WANG et al.
In the three-axis coupled control structure, the directional
control augmentation parameters and the ‘‘hard” cross-
connection decoupling parameters are determined by the yaw
and pitch control derivatives of the split drag rudders. The
accuracy of these two control derivatives may have significant
impacts on the directional dynamic characteristics and the con-
trol decoupling performance. Besides, the variation of roll con-
trol derivative of the split drag rudders may degrade the
lateral-directional decoupling performance. According to the
studies in Refs. 6,7,24,37, when compared with other aerody-
namic parameter perturbations of flying wing aircraft, the con-
trol derivative perturbations of drag rudders have relatively
greater influences on the dynamic characteristics of the
closed-loop aircraft. Therefore, the following context will put
emphasis on analyzing the influences of control derivative per-
turbations of drag rudders on the three-axis coupled flight con-
trol law.
To analyze the influences of the yaw and pitch control
derivative perturbation of the drag rudder, the yaw maneuver
command tracking simulation in Section 4.2.1 is taken as the
nominal simulation case, and control derivatives perturbed
simulations are performed based on the nominal case using
nonlinear simulation model of the aircraft. To analyze the
influence of roll control derivative perturbation, the coordi-
nated turn simulation in Section 4.2.2 is taken as nominal case
to perform perturbed simulation analysis. Due to the use of
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft 2521

Fig. 10 Coordinated turn maneuver simulation.

2522
nonlinear simulation model in perturbation analysis, the
amplitude of roll maneuver command for the coordinated turn
simulation has been appropriately adjusted. As for the static
aerodynamic parameters of aircraft, by using computational
fluid dynamics method or wind tunnel tests, it is capable to
obtain high accuracy values, so the deviation range of static
aerodynamic parameter is relatively small. According to Ref.
37, the parameter deviations of the control derivatives Cldr ,
Cndr and Cmdr are determined within range of ±10%. Then
perturbed simulation analyses of the three control derivatives
are performed separately to determine their influences on the
three-axis coupled flight control law.
4.3.1. Perturbation of pitch control derivative Cmdr
The perturbed simulation results for pitch control derivative
Cmdr in yaw maneuver command tracking are compared with
the nominal simulation result and shown in Fig. 11.
Fig. 11(b) shows that the perturbation of pitch control
derivative Cmdr would slightly affect the dynamic response
characteristics of the disturbed AOA. Within 1 s of the sim-
ulation time, the disturbed AOA amplitude of perturbed
simulations is small when compared with nominal simulation
results. Within 1 to 4 s of simulation time, when the control
derivative Cmdr is increased by 10%, the amplitude of dis-
turbed AOA response is increased by about 0.05° with
Fig. 11 Perturbed simulation results of pitch control derivative Cmdr .
L. WANG et al.
respect to the nominal value. When the control derivative
Cmdr is reduced by 10%, the maximum amplitude of AOA
response is decreased by about 0.04° compared with the
nominal value. After 4 s of simulation time, the AOA
responses of the perturbed simulations have nearly con-
verged and are consistent with the nominal simulation result.
According to Fig. 11(d), when the control derivative Cmdr is
perturbed, the ‘‘hard” cross-connection for drag rudder and
inboard elevons cannot accurately eliminate the AOA distur-
bance. But due to the ‘‘soft” cross-connection design for the
longitudinal and lateral-directional axes, the inboard elevons
can dynamically adjust its deflection according to the AOA
disturbance. As shown in Fig. 11(d), when pitch control
derivative Cmdr is increased by 10%, the deflection of
inboard elevons will increase relative to the nominal value
to ensure fast convergence of the AOA. When pitch control
derivative Cmdr is reduced by 10%, the deflection of inboard
elevons will decrease relative to the nominal value to avoid
generating additional AOA disturbance. Finally, the AOA
disturbances induced by the drag rudder are completely
eliminated.
Since the pitch control derivative perturbation of drag rud-
der only affects the longitudinal dynamics, there is very small
variation in the lateral-directional state variables in Fig. 11s(a)
and (c).
Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft 2523

4.3.2. Perturbation of yaw control derivative Cndr
The perturbed simulation results for yaw control derivative
Cndr in yaw maneuver command tracking are compared with
the nominal simulation result and shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 12(a) and (d) indicate that the perturbation of yaw con-
trol derivative Cndr mainly affects the dynamic response pro-
cess of sideslip angle. When Cndr is reduced by 10%, the
maximum overshoot of the sideslip angle response is increased
by approximately 0.5° relative to the nominal result, and the
trimmed deflection of split drag rudder is increased from 2.7°
of the nominal value to 3° to provide higher control effective-
ness. When Cndr is increased by 10%, the overshoot of the side-
slip angle response is reduced by about 0.4° with respect to the
nominal result, and the trimmed deflection of the split drag
rudders is reduced by about 0.3° from the nominal value as
a result of increased control effectiveness. In order to quantita-
tively determine the influence of Cndr perturbation on the direc-
tional flying quality of the flying wing aircraft, LOES matching
is performed for the parameter perturbed closed-loop aircraft’s
directional axis. The obtained directional LOES models and
flying quality parameters are listed in Tables 8 and 9. Table 9
shows that, when Cndr is reduced by 10%, the Dutch roll mode
frequency and damping are reduced to 1.14 rad/s and 0.49
respectively. When Cndr is increased by 10%, the Dutch roll
mode frequency and damping are reduced to 0.95 rad/s and
0.51. And in both of the two cases, the Dutch roll modes still
can meet Level 1 flying quality requirements. Since the feed-
back yaw rate signal in the directional channel of the closed-
loop aircraft is calculated by the improved method in Sec-
tion 2.2, the perturbation of Cndr will not significantly change
the directional damping characteristics. In both of the two per-
turbed simulations, the sideslip angle response can quickly

Fig. 12 Perturbed simulation results of yaw control derivative Cndr .

Table 8 Cndr perturbed directional LOES model.

Case Directional LOES model Mismatch parameterMr
bðsÞ 3:0978  10 7
ðs þ 6:069  10 Þðs þ 1:676Þðs þ 8:012  10 Þ
6 6

10%Cndr perturbation bcmd ðsÞ ¼ ðs þ 3:134Þðs þ 8:012  106 Þðs2 þ 1:116s þ 1:298Þ
e0:035s 2.7
bðsÞ 0:0010722ðs þ 4366Þðs þ 1:136Þðs þ 8:138  10 Þ 0:056s
6

10%Cndr perturbation ¼ ðs þ 3:051Þ e 3.3

bcmd ðsÞ ðs þ 8:138  106 Þðs2 þ 0:962s þ 0:903Þ
2524 L. WANG et al.

Table 9 Cndr perturbed directional flying quality parameters.

Case nd xnd (rad/s) nd  xnd (rad/s) Flying quality level
0.4898 1.1393 0.5580
10%Cndr perturbation Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
0.5062 0.9503 0.4810
10%Cndr perturbation Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1

reach the steady-state value, and the directional dynamic char-
acteristics are still good.
Since the longitudinal-directional axes and lateral-
directional axes adopt ‘‘soft” cross-connection decoupling
design, the longitudinal-directional dynamics and the lateral-
directional dynamics can be perfectly decoupled. In Fig. 12
(b) and (c), the perturbation of yaw control derivative Cndr
has little effect on the AOA and the roll angle variation rate
responses, and the state responses of the perturbed simulations
and the nominal simulation are almost the same.
4.3.3. Perturbation of roll control derivative Cldr
The perturbed simulation results for roll control derivative Cldr
in the coordinated turn simulation are compared with the
nominal simulation result and shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13(a) and (d) show that the roll angle variation
rate response and outboard elevon dynamic deflection
process of the perturbed simulations are very close to
the nominal simulation results. This is because that the
lateral-directional axes of closed-loop aircraft are already
decoupled by ‘‘soft” cross-connection design, and the
absolute value of roll control derivative Cldr is much
smaller than the value of Cldr , hence the perturbation of
Cldr does not have significant influence on the lateral
dynamics.
The ‘‘soft” cross-connection design for longitudinal and
lateral-directional axes can ensure good dynamic decoupling
performance, and in Fig. 13(b) and (c), the perturbation of roll
control derivative Cldr has almost no influence on AOA and
sideslip angle responses.

Fig. 13 Perturbed simulation results of roll control derivative Cldr .

Three-axis coupled flight control law design for flying wing aircraft
5. Conclusions
(1) To improve the poor modal characteristics and to
decouple the three-axis control responses from the drag
rudder, a three-axis coupled flight control design method
is proposed for flying wing aircraft. First, the three-axis
coupled control augmentation structure is established.
Then, a ‘‘soft” cross-connection design is used for
three-axis dynamic decoupling and a ‘‘hard‘‘ cross-
connection design is used to realize longitudinal control
response decoupling from the drag rudder. Maneuvering
turn angular rate estimation and subtraction are used in
the directional feedback path to improve the damping
characteristics of the Dutch roll mode. The feedback
augmentation and maneuver command tracking control
parameters are designed via the EA method and the
maneuvering command feedforward control parameters
are designed via the model following method.
(2) The three-axis coupled flight control design method is
evaluated on an example flying wing aircraft. The aug-
mented aircraft can satisfy Level 1 flying quality require-
ments in all three axes and the Dutch roll mode damping
is improved by approximately 30% compared with the
‘‘normal method”. Thus, the proposed method effec-
tively improves the handling quality of flying wing air-
craft in the yaw axis.
(3) In the yaw maneuver and coordinated turn maneuver
simulation examples, when using the ‘‘normal method”,
the drag rudder produces long-time oscillatory motions
of AOA with maximum amplitudes of 0.5° and 1.5°
respectively, while for the ‘‘coupled method”, the oscilla-
tion of AOA is substantially reduced and the disturbed
amplitude is less than 0.1°. The simulation results
demonstrate that the three-axis coupled flight control
design method has a superior decoupling effect on the
drag rudder.
(4) In the control derivatives perturbed simulation exam-
ples, the amplitude variation of the disturbed AOA
responses caused by the perturbation of pitch control
derivative C mdr is within ±0.05°, and the perturbation
has ignorable effect on the lateral-directional states.
The perturbation of yaw control derivative C ndr affects
the overshoot of the sideslip angle response and Dutch
roll modal characteristics. The overshoot amplitude of
sideslip angle varies within ±0.5°, while the Dutch roll
mode still can meet level 1 flying quality requirements.
The perturbation of roll control derivative C ldr has little
influence on the lateral handling quality of the closed-
loop aircraft, and the longitudinal and directional
dynamic responses are not affected. In short, the results
of the perturbed simulations indicate that the three-axis
coupled control law is robust, and can ensure that the
closed-loop aircraft have good control decoupling effect
on the drag rudder even though the control derivatives
of drag rudder are perturbed.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities of China (No.: YWF-19-BJ-J-322).
2525
References
1. Colgren R, Loschke R. Effective design of highly maneuverable
tailless aircraft. J Aircraft 2008;45(4):1441–9.
2. Xu XP, Zhou Z. Study on longitudinal stability improvement of
flying wing aircraft based on synthetic jet flow control. Aerosp Sci
Technol 2015;46:287–98.
3. Song L, Yang H. Dihedral influence on lateral–directional
dynamic stability on large aspect ratio tailless flying wing aircraft.
Chin J Aeronaut 2014;27(5):1149–55.
4. Stenfelt G, Ringertz U. Lateral stability and control of a tailless
aircraft configuration. J Aircraft 2009;46(6):2161–3.
5. Ma C, Li L, Wang LX. Design of innovative control surfaces of
flying wing aircrafts with large ratio aspect. J Beijing Univ
Aeronaut Astronaut 2007;33(2):149–53 [Chinese].
6. Li L, Ma C, Wang LX. Lateral-directional control characteristics
of high aspect-ratio flying wings configurations. J Beijing Univ
Aeronaut Astronaut 2007;33(10):1186–90 [Chinese].
7. Wang L, Wang LX, Jia CR. Control features and application
characteristics of split drag rudder utilized by flying wing. Acta
Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2011;32(8):1392–9 [Chinese].
8. Verhaagen NG, Jobe CE. Wind-tunnel study on a 65-deg delta
wing at sideslip. J Aircraft 2003;40(2):290–6.
9. Tournes C, Shtessel Y. Sliding mode control for tailless aircraft.
Reston: AIAA; 1997. Report No.: AIAA-1997-3633.
10. Andrew S. Linear parameter varying control for a tailless aircraft.
Reston: AIAA; 1997. Report No.: AIAA-1997-3636.
11. Anhtuan N, William R. Tailless aircraft control law design using
dynamic inversion and mu synthesis. Proceedings of the 1996
IEEE international conference on control application. New York:
IEEE; 1996.
12. Rowena E, David W. Indirect adaptive flight control of a tailless
fighter aircraft. Reston: AIAA; 1999. Report No.: AIAA-1999-4042.
13. Stevens BL, Lewis FL, Johnson EN. Aircraft control and simula-
tion. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 377–584.
14. Balas GG, Hodgkinson J. Control design methods for good flying
qualities. Reston: AIAA; 2009. Report No.: AIAA-2009-6319.
15. Shen L, Huang D, Wu GX. Effects of yaw-roll coupling ratio on
the lateral-directional departure prediction and restraint. Chin J
Aeronaut 2019;32(10):2239–53.
16. Honeywell and Lockheed Martin, Multivariable control design
guidelines final report. Dayton OH:Wright Patterson AFB; 1995.
Report No.: WL-TR-96-3099.
17. Garrard William L. Lateral directional aircraft control using
eigenstructure assignment. J Guidance Control Dyn 1998;21
(3):523–5.
18. Satoh A, Sugimoto K. Partial eigenstructure assignment approach
for robust flight control. J Guidance Control Dyn 2004;27
(1):145–50.
19. Magni JF. Multimodel eigenstructure assignment in flight-control
design. Aerosp Sci Technol 1999;3(3):141–51.
20. Merkel M, Gojny MH, Carl UB. Enhanced eigenstructure
assignment for aeroelastic control application. Aerosp Sci Technol
2004;8(6):533–43.
21. Gao ZX, Fu J. Robust LPV modeling and control of aircraft flying
through wind disturbance. Chin J Aeronaut 2019;32(7):1588–602.
22. Albostan O, Gökasßan M. Mode decoupling robust eigenstructure
assignment applied to the lateral-directional dynamics of the F-16
aircraft. Aerosp Sci Technol 2018;77:677–87.
23. Nieto-Wire C, Sobel K. Eigenstructure assignment for a tailless
aircraft. Reston: AIAA; 2007. Report No.: AIAA-2007-6417.
24. Wang L, Wang LX. Reconfigurable flight control design for
combat flying wing with multiple control surfaces. Chin J Aeronaut
2012;25(4):493–9.
25. Nieto-Wire C, Sobel K. Delta operator eigenstructure assignment
for reconfigurable control of a tailless aircraft. J Guidance Control
Dyn 2014;37(6):1824–39.
2526
26. Ma W, Zhang N, Ma R, et al. Flight control law design and flight
test for small flying wing aircraft. Ordnance Industry Automation
2015;12:42–8 [Chinese].
27. Peng C, Wang X, Ma T, et al. Design on stability augmentation
system of flying wing aircraft using improved eigenstructure
assignment with output feedback. Control Decision 2016;6:1111–7
[Chinese].
28. Hart R. B-2 flight test program - An update. Reston: AIAA; 1992.
Report No.: AIAA-1992-4118.
29. Gong Z. Research on unsteady aerodynamic modeling, control
law design and clearance for advanced aerospace vehicle [disser-
tation]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astro-
nautics; 2011.p. 81-5 [Chinese].
30. Fang ZP, Chen WC, Zhang SG. Aircraft flight dynamics. Bei-
jing: Beihang University Press; 2005, p. 203–6 [Chinese].
31. Magni JF. Robust modal control with a toolbox for use with
MATLAB. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. p.
12–27.
L. WANG et al.
32. US Department of Defense. Flying qualities of piloted aircraft.
MIL-STD-1797. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (OH), ASD/
ENES 1997.
33. Broussard J, O’Brien M. Feedforward control to track the output
of a forced model. IEEE Trans Autom Control 1980;25(4):851–3.
34. Colgren R. Eigenstructure assignment applied to the F-117A.
Reston: AIAA; 1998. Report No.: AIAA-1998-4247.
35. Hodgkinson J. History of low-order equivalent systems for aircraft
flying qualities. J Guidance Control Dyn 2005;28(4):577–83.
36. Cong B, Wang LX. Low order equivalent matching methods for
flying wings. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut 2018;33(2):286–94
[Chinese].
37. Yang Y, Zhang P. Monte carlo analysis and design of FBW flight
control system. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2008; 29(S1): S85–90
[Chinese].