A MA THEMA TICAL MODEL FOR EFFICIENT

ESTIMATION OF AIRCRAFT MOTIONS

R. E. Bach, Jr.
NASA Ames Research Cent er, Moffett Field, California 94035, USA

Abstract . In the usual formulation of the aircraft state-estimation problem, motions

along a flight trajectory are represented by a plant consisting of nonlinear state and
measurement models. Problem solution using this formulation requires that both
state - and measurement -d ependent Jacobian matrices be evaluated along any trajectory.
In this paper it is shown that a set of state variables can be chosen to realize a
linear state model of very simple form , such that all nonlinearities appear in the
measurement model. The potential advantage of the new formulation is computational :
the Jacobian matrix corresponding to a linear state model is constant, a feature that
should outweigh the fact that the measurement model is more complicated than in the
conventional formulation. To compare the modeling methods, aircraft motions from
typical flight -t est and accident data were estimated, using each formulation with the
same off-line (smoothing) algorithm. The results of these experiments, reported in
the paper , demonstrate c l early the computational superiority of the linear state-
variable formulation. The procedure advocated here may be extended to other nonlin ear
estimation problems , including on-line (filtering) applications .

Keywords. Aerospace trajectories; nonlinear systems; parameter estimation; smoothing.

INTRODUCTION been first suggested and successfully applied

Nonlinear systems governed by ordinary dif-
ferential equations constitute a large pro-
portion of the models used in practical
estimation problems . For example , accurate
determination of aircraft motions along a
flight trajectory is an important problem
that occurs in flight -t est and accident
analysis . In formulating this problem , the
motions are usually represented by a six-
degree-of-freedom, rigid-body model , referred
to a flat , nonrotating Earth . A conventional
choice of state variables leads to a plant
consisting of nonlinear state and measurement
models . The solution algorithm must there-
fore evaluate both state-dependent and
measurement-dependent Jacobian matrices along
any trajectory.
In this paper it is shown that a coordinate
tran sformation can be performed to realize
a plant with a linear state model of very
simple form, where all nonlinearities appear
in the measurement model. The potential
advantage of such a formulation is computa-
tional: the Jacobian matrix corresponding
to the state model is constant along any tra-
jectory, a feature that can significantly im-
prove the efficiency of a solution algorithm.
The reader is probably aware that the use of
a coordinate transformation to simplify cal-
culations is a well-established technique in
mathematics . However, the class of trans-
formations considered here appears to have
to a flight control problem by Meyer (1981) .
Other researchers (Brockett, 1978; Brunovsky,
1970; Hunt and Su, 1982a, 1982b) have formal-
ized the theory and provided the necessary
and sufficient conditions for transformin g
a nonlinear system into its equivalent linear
counterpart . The primary contribution of
this paper is to demonstrate how the linear-
state concept can be applied with a t ypica l
off- line (smoothing) algorithm to reduce the
compu tational burden required to solve the
aircraft state-estimation problem . The pro-
cedure advocated here may be ex t e nded to
other nonlinear estimation problems, includ-
ing on-line (filtering) applications.
Research to p rovide aircraft state-estimation
algorithms is motivated by a need to analyze
the consistency of flight - test data, a
procedure which includes removal of bias and
scale- factor errors and construction of any
missing states . Furthermore, in an accident
situation, estimation of aircraft motions
from limited data may be quite useful in
helping to determine the probable cause of
the accident. The present algorithms for
estimating aircraft states (Bach, 1980;
Hansen, 1978; Klein and Schiess, 1977;
Stalford, 1980) all use the nonlinear-state
formulation of the rigid - body model . This
paper describes two estimation experiments
in which the nonlinear and linear formula-
tions were compared , using a smoothing
algorithm reported by Bach (1980) . The
experiments were designed to illustrate the

1155
1156 R. E . Bach , Jr .

computational advantage possible with th e When motion of the air mass must be consid -
coordinate- transformed plant . e r ed , the model is augmented with wind-
velocity s tat es (w x , wv , wz) and acce l eration
The paper is organized as follows. First, forcing functions (gx' - gy , gz) as in Eq. (4).
the usual nonlinear formulation of the rigid-
body model and its equivalent linear-state
r ep resentation are described. Then the
problem of estimating aircraft motions along (4 )
a trajectory is defined, and an algorithm is
selected to comp~re the performance of th e
formulations for solution of such a problem.
Some comments are made regarding how algo -
rithm efficiency is model - dep e nd en t . Two Since an estimatio n prob l em is generally
estimation experiments are described and concerned with "fitting " t he response of a
their results in comparing the computational state model to a set of measurem e nts in some
burden associated with the Jacobian matrices suitable way, a measurement model mus t be
for each plant are reported . Finally, a specified. The measurements available in an
possible application of the linear-state aircraft state-estimation problem usually
concept for real - time estimation of pitch include body accelerati0ns, angular veloci-
and roll angles is presented and its practi- ties, Euler angles, and position coordinates.
cal significance is discussed . These make up the linear e l ements of the
measurement model corresponding to the state
model of Eqs . (1) - (4). Also in the measure-
EQUATIONS OF MOTION ment set are aerodynamic variables (airspeed
V, angle - of-attack a , and sideslip angle 3 )
For the trajectory analysis problems consid - as well as position variables (slant range R,
ered in this paper, aircraft motions are bearing angle B, and eleva tion angle E) _
assumed to be governed by a six- degree - of - The set is completed by allowing for the
freedom kinematic model, referred to a flat, measurement of winds (horizontal magnitude
nonrotating Earth (Etkin , 1972) . In the and direction Wh, Wd and vertical Wz ).
usual formulation, aircraft states include All of these are nonlin ear functions of th e
Eu l er angles (~ , e , w) and body angular state variables, and are given by
veloci~ies (p , q, r) which are related by

[~Je [(qSin~ + rcos~)~ane

~
= qcos~

(qsinlO
-
+ pj [~J
; qrSl.n~

+ rcos~)/cos e ~
=
[ a R-l
am
an
, (1)

and vehicle inertial coordinates (x, y, z) and

body linear velocities (u, v, w) related by

+ rv - qw - gcin S ]

[t}m[:}[IH: + pw - ru + gsin~cos 6 ,
+ qu - pv + gcos~cos e
(2) The matrix .£ in Eq . (5) transforms from an
inertial f rame into a body - fixed frame and is
equal to the transpose of the matrix given in
Eq . (3). We should note in pass ing tha t any
where g is the gravitational co nstant and bias or scale-factor errors associated with
7n is a matrix that transforms from a body- the measurement model can be appended to the
fixed reference frame into a vehicle-carried state vec tor and tr eated as cdnstants , that is,
vertical frame; it is given by
b = 0 s = Cl (7)

cos9cos~ sirr,Osin Bcos-J cos.,csin '3cos ...

- cos..psin .... + 5 in.,cs in ...
where b is a vector of unknown biases and
s is a vector of unknown scale factors.
m= cos9sin,+, sin~sinEsin ... cos'Psin~sin", (3)
+ cos'PcoSt,; - sifllPcos ..

- sinoP 5 in..pcost: cos..pcos ... COORDI~ATE TRANSFORHATION

Forcing functions for this state model are The system of nonlinear differential equa -
the body angular accelerations (a R- , am, an) tions (1) and (2) is said to be block triang-
in Eq . (1) and the linear accelerations ular , a class t ha t r eadily permits coordinate
(a x , ay, a z ) in (2) . For a situation that transformation into a p lant with a linear
requires accelerations to be treated as state state model. The formal procedure for gener -
variables , the state model can be extended by ating such a trans fo rmation was outlined by
specifying new " forcing" functions (d £ , d m , Meyer (1981). More ge n e ral nonlinear systems
d n ) , (d x , d y ' d z ) as shown in Eq . (4) . are considered by Brockett (1978) and Hunt
 A Ma t hema ti ca l Model fo r Eff i c ient Es timat i o n of Ai rcraft Mot i on s
and Su (1982a , 1982b). For our new model ,
we shall preserve as states the Euler angles
(~, e, ~) and the inertial position coordi-
nates (x , y , z) . A transformation of the
rigid - body equations is determined as fol-
lows. First note that the body angular ve-
locities (p, q, r) in Eq . (1) can be solved
as
o -sin e ]
cos~ sin~cose
- sin~ cos~cose
Next, since expressions for angular accelera-
tions are needed in the measurement model,
they can be constructed from Eqs . (1) and
(8) as
where ~ is the time - derivative of t he
matrix IR in Eq . (8) . Hence , the state
variables (~ , e , ~) , (~ , e,
~) , and (;p , e , ~)
make up part of the linear state model .
Now , recall that we wish to prese r ve as state
variables the position coordinates (x , y, z) .
Note that from Eq. (2), the body linear
velocities cau be written in terms of the
inertial velocities. Finally, the body
accelerations can be expressed in terms of
inertial accelerations. These well - known
relations are given by
(10)
The state variables (x , y , z), (~ , y, ~) , and
(i , ~, , ~) , ,along with (wx, wy ' wz ) from
Eq . (4) make up the rest of the linear state
model .
That our transformed plant has a truly linear
state model is clearly evident in the block
diagram shown in Fig . 1 . There we see that
the model consists of integrator "bundles , "
a structure known as a Brunovsky canonical
form (Brunovsky , 1970) . Note that the "new"
forcing functions for this system are
ex', '/, Xl, (gx, gy ' gz), and (iti , ',l", iI;) . 1
In the measurement model , the blocks
labeled a, P , and W comprise the
I In some situations it is preferable to use
a simpler state model with forcing functions
(i,y, z) , (gx, gy ' gz)' and (<i; , ~) , e,
11 5 7
:r+'-----i
...------{ ~
{~
{~
(8)
!f'H---{ :~ an
I+----p
(9)
~4f---t1 >-+---......- - - { ~
MEASUREMENT
MODEL
STATE
MODEL
Fig . 1 . A transformed plant for aircraft
state estimation .
non l inear re l ations given by Eqs . (5) and
(6) of the previous formulation . The new
measurement model , however , requires the
additional nonlinear transformations £,
~, and ~ to generate the body velocities
and accelerations according to Eqs . (8) -
(10). Hence , we are confronted with an
unavoidable trade-off : simplification of
the state model is achieved with an increase
in complexity of the measurement model . If
the potential advantage of the linear state
formulation is to be realized with a given
estimation algorithm , the feature of a con-
stant state-Jacobian matrix must outweigh
the fact that the measurement model is more
complicated than in the conventional formu-
lation . The choice of an algorithm that
seems to have this property is adressed in
the next section .
SMOOTHI~G ALGORITlmS
Here we consider the choice of an off-line
(smoothing) algorithm for use in comparing
the mathematically equivalent formulations
of the rigid - body model described in pre -
vious sections. The problem of determining
aircraft motions along a trajectory is
conveniently posed as a fixed-interval
smoothing problem, which is defined as
follows : Given a system with state model
xCi + 1) f[x(i) ,w(i) 1 x(O) xo (11)
and measurement model
1158
z(i) ; h[x(i)] + veil
determine Xo and the sequence [w(i)] ,
i ; 0, ... , N - 1, that minimize the per -
formance measure
N-l
+ L [wT(i)Q-1w(i) + v T (i+l)R- 1v(i+l)]/2 .
In Eq. (11), xCi) is the state vector and
w(i) is the (unknown) forcing-function
vector; in Eq . (12), veil is assumed to be
the error in measuring the system output
h[x(i)] . The performance measure, Eq. (13) ,
is a squared- error criterion, where Xo is
an a priori estimate of the state, and Po'
Q, and R are weighting matrices . A Bayes -
ian maximum-likelihood interpretation would
consider Po as the error-covariance matrix
for the a priori estimate and R as the
error-covariance matrix for the measurement
sequence. Although the forcing-function
sequence is "deterministic ," good results
are obtained when each diagonal element of
Q is chosen to match the expected mean-
square value of the corresponding element
of w(i).
Two equivalent algorithms for solution of the
nonlinear smoothing problem are outlined in
Table 1; details were published previously
(Bach , 1980). The first algorithm consists
of a forward covariance filter a n d backward
smoother. Notice that sequences [e(i)] ,
[K(i)] , computed during the filtering pass,
are utilized during the smoothing pass .
Hence, the storage required depends on the
dimensions of z(i) and xCi) and , of
course , on the length of the data record .
The second algorithm , shown in Table 1 ,
consists of a backward information filter
and a forward smoother . An advantage of this
formulation is that the covariance of the
a priori estimate can be ignored (P o - 1 con-
sidered to be zero) . Here the sequences
[dei»), [L(i)] are utilized during the
smoothing pass , so that the storage required
depends on the dimensions of w(i), xCi)
and on the record length.
Each nominal, or "smoothed" trajectory is
computed by employing a finite - d i fference
approximation to the continuous state model .
Here we use a simple Euler procedure ,
x(i+l) ; xCi) + 6 tx(i) ; x(O) ; Xo (14)
where 6 t is the time - step . The compu t ing
strategy used to solve the smoo t hing problem
is shown in Fig . 2 . An i t e r a t ion loop (not
shown) evaluates the performance measure,
exerts some control ove r s t ep size ax o ,
[aw(i») , and decides when to t erminate the
solution .
R. E . Bach , Jr .
(12)
/\
Z MEASUREMENT ~ _ _ _ _ __
MODEL
+
/\
W
(13)
MEASUREMENT
RECORD
Fig. 2. Block diagram of compu ting
strategy for solving a
state-estimation problem.
The smoothing algorithms shown in Table 1
are representative of those in present use .
The first, at least in form, is similar to
extended Kalman-filter methods (Hansen,
1978; Klein and Schiess, 1977; Stalford,
1980) . The second has been implemented as
part of a program called S~~CK (SMoothing
for AirCraft Kinematics) for use in flight-
test analysis and to assist the National
Transportation Safety Board in its investi-
gation of aircraft accidents. To determine
which of the two algorithms might be more
improved by incorporating the transformed
plant, we should observe the manner in which
the Jacobian matrices fx and hx enter
into the computational process . Generally,
both are sparse : for the linear state
model, however, not only is fx very sparse ,
but its entries are constant. On the other
hand, the hx will be more complicated and
less sparse than the hx corresponding to
the nonlinear state model . Scrutiny of the
algorithms of Table 1 indicates that the
second algorithm should be more improved,
since computations involving fx appear to
dominate over those involving h x ' Because
that algorithm was already programmed in
SMACK , it was a relatively simple matter to
produce a version with the transformed plant
for the experimental evaluation described
in the next section .
ESTIMATION EXPERUIENTS
In order to compare algorithm efficiency
with each of the rigid - body models, an
aircraft flight simulation was prepared .
The maneuver consisted of a climbing, 180 0
left turn lasting 1 min, made in a moderate
wind . All measurements were suitably con-
taminated with random noise . The data rate
was chosen to be the same for each measure-
ment at 10 Hz , providing 600 points for
each record , and the equations of motion
were integrated at the same rate .
 A Mathemat i cal Model for Eff icient Estimation of Aircraft Mot ions
TABLE 1 Equivalent Algorithms for So lut ion of a Fixed- Interval
Smoothing Problem
No . 1. Forward filter , backward smoother
1. With Xo and [w(i)] obtained from the
preceding iteration (or an initial guess) ,
compute a nominal trajectory using (11) ,
evaluate the residual sequence [veil] using
(12) and the performance me asure using (13) .
2 . Solve the forward covariance filter ,
consisting of a time update:
6 x(i);fx O ~(i -l )-fww(i - l) ; ox(O);xo- x o
M(i);fxP(i-l)fxT+fwQfwT; P(O);P o
and a measurement updat e :
O ~(i); o x(i)+K(i)e(i)
P(i);[I - K(i)hx]M(i)
where
e(i);v(i) - hx ox(i) ; K(i);M(i)hxTR- 1
R;R+hxM(i)h x T
3. Solve the backward smoother :
S(i) ;[I-K (i)hx]T[ l (i) - hxTR- 1e(i)]
A(i-l);fxT S (i) , A(N) ; O
During the backward pass , update t he
sequence [w(i)] using
and determine an updated initial condition
for t he next iteration from
4. Iterate until changes in x o ' [w(i)]
are " sufficiently " small and the perform-
ance measure is minimized .
A first estimation experiment , typical of a
full-scale flight t est , utilized measure-
ments of accelerations (a Z, am ' an) '
(a x , ay , a z ), angular rates (p , q , r ) , Euler
angles (~ , 9 , ~ ), position variables
(R , B, E) , aerodynamic variables (V , a , B) ,
I'
and winds (Wh ' Wd' z ) . The plant for the
nonlinea r s t ate formu lati on is given in
Eqs . (1) - (6), and th e linear-state plant
is shown in Fig . 1. No t e that t he number
of state va riabl es (o rd er of the differen-
tial- equa tion model) is NF; 21 , and that
e l emen t s of th e measu r ement model number
NH ; 21 . The numb er of unknown fo r cing
func tions is NI.; 9, and t he numbe r of
initial conditions, including bias and scale~
factor parameters , was set at NX ; 39 .
Convergence to a sa tisfa c t ory solution was
accom plished (in an equal l y "robust " manner)
in each case within seven iterations .
IIS<}
No . 2 . Backward filter , forward smoother
1 . With Xo and [w(i)] obtained from the
preceding iteration (or an initial guess) ,
compute a nominal trajectory using (11 ) ,
evaluate the residual sequence [veil] using
(12) and the performance measure using (13) .
2 . Solve the backwa r d information filter ,
consisting of a measurement update:
B (i); ~ (i) - hxTR- 1 V(i); ~(N) ; 0
S(i);M(i)+hxTR- 1h x ; M(N) ; O
and a time update:
~(i-l);fxT[ S (i) - S(i)fwd(i)]
M(i-l );fxT[I - fwL(i)]TS(i)fx
where
d(i);Q[fwT S (i)+Q-1w(i-l)]; L(i);QfwTS(i)
Q;[Q- l + fwTS(i)fw] - l
3. Perform the Newton- Raphson compu tation:
and solve the forward smoo th e r:
with
ow(i);-d(i+l)- L(i+l) fx ox(i)
4. Update Xo and [w(i)] . Itera t e until
6x o ' [ cw(i)] are " sufficiently " sma ll and
the pe r formance measure is minimized.
A comparison of t he computatio nal burden
gene rat ed by th e backward filter and forward
smoothe r with each model is shown in Table 2,
in terms of t he numb er of elements and the
computation times (per iteration) associated
with each of t he Jacobian matrices fw ' fx '
and h x . In that tabl e , NFW, NFX , and NHX
r efer to the number of nonzero e l ements in
each of the Jacobian matrices . The result s
of th e fligh t-test experiment indicate an
overall improvement in algorit hm efficiency
of about 25% using the linear s tat e model;
t he improvement was r ealiz e d, as predicted,
in th e fx -r e lat ed ca l cu lations. Notice also
that because of t he simple form of the h x -
related calculations requir ed by the algorithm
used , the added complexi t y of th e measurement
model in th e trans forme d plant caused only
a small increase in computation time.
1160 R. E. Bach, Jr.

TABLE 2 Comparison of Jacobian Matrix Computation Times

for Two Simulation Experiments

a
No . 1. Flight testa No. 2 Accident
Jacobian matrix NF=2l, NW=9, NX=39 , NH=2l NF=13, NW=6 , NX=19,NH=7
Nonlinear model Linear model Nonlinear model Linear model

~N\.J -

f
w
[ nFI.J 1JF
Jt
_ NX _

t
f
x
[ 1+NFX NF 61; 5.94 s 43 ; 2 . 20 s

- NX -

t
[ NHX NH

1~
100; 0.47 s 12; 0 . 10 s 32 ; 0 . 20 s

Total time for all

algorithm calculations 11 . 43 s 8.51 s 3 . 90 s 2 . 71 s
(per iteration)

a The first number in each column is the number of nonz e ro elements in each of th e Jacobian
matrices (NFW, NFX, NHX); the times shown are computation times associated with the
particular Jacobian matrix (per iteration).
bAll unity.

A second experiment was designed to compare

the models in analyzing an accident situa-
tion, for which only limited data would
generally be available 0.Jingrove, Bach ,
and Parks , 1979). Here we consider estima-
tion of roll and pitch angles (~ , e ), given MEASUREMENT
measurements typically recoverable from a MODEL
metal-foil flight recorder 2 following an
accident. Such measurements would include h
altitude, airspeed, magnetic heading , and
normal acceleration. Because of observa-
bility limitations, these data must be
augmented by assuming zero side-slip angle
and side acceleration. In addition , it is
necessary to provide an estimate of the v
angle-of-attack time history. This can be Cl

done by combining aircraft performance data 13= 0

with other data, as outlined by Bach and
l.Jingrove (1982b).

The transformed plant for this experimen t

is shown in Fig . 3 . Corresponding state
variables for the nonlinear model are
(~, e, 1jJ ), (p, q, r), z, (u, v, w), and
(a x ' ay , a z ); the forcing functions are

2Meta l-foil flight recorders, used on many Fig . 3. Roll and pitch estimation with
airliners and some military aircraft , are on-board measurements and
designed to withstand severe accidents . aircraft performance data .
 A Mathemati ca l Model f or Eff i c i ent Es t imation of Aircraft Mot i ons
(a l , am' an) and (d x , d y ' d z ) . Hence , the
dimensions for this problem are NF = 13 ,
m, = 6, ' and NH = 7 . The number of param-
eters was chosen to be NX = 19 . The results
of this experiment, shown in Table 2 , again
indicate that computational savings are
obtained by using the transformed plant; in
this case, the savings are greater than 30%.
As in the previous experiment, each version
of the algorithm was equally robust and
provided similar fits to the data.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has shown that the usual formu-
lation of the rigid-body equations of motion
used for representing an aircraft can be
readily transformed to a plant with a linear
state model . The potential advantage of this
formulation when used with an algorithm to
solve a state-estimation problem is computa-
tional, and depends on the fact that the
state-Jacobian matrix is constant along any
trajectory . A recently implemented smooth-
ing algorithm was chosen as a test-bed for
a performance comparison of the two plant
formulations . Two experiments were described
in which the smoothing algorithm was used to
estimate aircraft motions along a simulated
trajectory. The first experiment , typical
of a flight-test data consistency a nalysis ,
indicated a savings of more than 25% i n
computation time with the linear model .
Similar results were reported in a second
experiment that was typical of an aircraft
accident analysis . In that case the compu-
tational savings were better than 30% .
The design of efficient algorithms for air-
craft state estimation is especially impor-
tant in a real- time environment because of
word-length and cycle~time limitations of
flight computers. Choice of a postflight
smoothing algorithm as a vehicle for
comparing the rigid-body models was one of
convenience and expediency: the algorithm
was available and its performance was well
understood . It should be emphasized ,
however, that the experimental results of
that comparison apply directly to the real-
time filtering problem . In fact , implemen-
tation of the linear-state concept with a
real-time filtering algorithm is currently
under study. For an example of such an
application, note that the plant shown in
Fig . 3 could also serve as a model for on-
board, real-time estimation of roll and
pitch angles. Such estimates could replace
or supplement corresponding gyroscopic
measurements . Alternatively , real-time
estimates of roll and pitch angles could
be made by adding accelerometer measurements
(ax, ay); the aerodynamic "pseudomeasure-
ments" (a , B) would then not be necessa r y .
1 161
The rigid - body aircraft model described in
this paper has been shown to be a " natural"
formulation for a linearization coordinate
transformation . Although not all nonlinear
systems are transformable, there are probably
many other areas yet to be discovered for
which the method can be successfully used.
REFERENCES
Bach, R.E., Jr . (1980) . A Variational
Technique for Smoothing Flight-Test and
Accident Data . AlAA Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference , Danvers , Mass .,
Aug . (to appear in AlAA Journal of
Aircraft , Aug. 1982).
Bach , R. E. , and R.C. Wing rove (1980) .
Equations for Determining Aircraft
Motions from Accident Data. NASA
TM- 78,609.
Brockett, E. W. (1978). Feedback Invariants
for Nonlinear Systems. IFAC Congress,
Helsinki .
Brunovsky , P . (1970). A classification of
linear controllable systems . Kibernetika
(Praka) , 6, 173- 187.
Et kin , B. (1972) . Dynamics of Atmospheric
Flight. Chaps. 4 and 5 . Wiley , New
York .
Hansen, R. S . (1978). Discrete Extended
Kalman Filter/Smoother Program for Air-
craft and Rotorcraft Data Consistency .
DEFKIS User ' s Guide , NASI-14549 , Systems
Control, Inc., Palo Alto , Calif ., Jan .
Hunt , L . R. , and R. Su (1982a) . Global trans -
formations on nonlinear systems .
Submitted to IEEE Trans . Autom . Control .
Hunt , L.R . , and R. Su (1982b). Linear
Equivalents of Nonlinear Time Varying
Systems . Proceedings of 1981 Inter-
national Symposium on Mathematical Theory
of Networks and Systems (to appear).
Klein, V., and J . R. Schiess (1977). Compat-
ibility Check of Measured Aircraft
Responses Using Kinematic Equations and
Extended Kalman Filter. NASA TN D-3514 .
t1yer , G. (1981). The Design of Exact
Nonlinear Model Followers . JACC ,
Charlottesville, Va . , June .
Stalford, H. L. (1980). The EBM System
Identification Technique and Its Applica-
tion to High a/B Modeling of Aircraft .
AlAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, Danvers , Mass ., Aug .
Wingrove, R. C., R. E. Bach , and E. K. Parks
(1979) . Aircraft Motion Analysis Using
Limited Flight and Radar Data . Presented
at 10th Annual Symposium of the Society of
Flight Test Engineers, Las Vegas, Nev . ,
Sept.