Document
NASA- TM-1 07067 19960003390
NASA Technical Memorandum 107067
Integrated Flight and Propulsion Controls
for Advanced Aircraft Configurations
;: -~. - --- .--...
Walter Merrill and Sanjay Garg
f - -------. ------
Lewis Research Center
. i
Cleveland, Ohio
!
I
{-
I i ,
I
1 0·;-, 1 I .--- I
~ I ;:',:j
i
!
L
'
I , !
;
Prepared for the
86th Meeting on Advanced Aeroengine Concepts and Controls
sponsored by the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development
Seattle, Washington, September 24-29, 1995
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1111 illlllllllli~IIIW[llmlliil!11111111111 L
3 1176014230172 lDtegrated FIigbt and Propulsion Controls For Advanced AiJ:craft Configuratioos Dr. Walter Menill ml Dr. ~ay Garg National Aeronautics ml Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio (RCS). l)esignc> were completed for a hover task and evaluated by fixed based, piloted siImdation with good The research vision of the NASA Lewis resuJts3. A secoId applicalion of the partitioned Research Center in the area of integrated fligbt and DMICS approach, with ~ tmdification, was applied propulsion controls tec1mologies is descn"bed. In to a mixed-flow vectored thrust srOVL configuration.
particular the Integrated Method for Propulsion and Again fixed-based piloted simulations were ~ Comrols developed at the Lewis Research accompfisbed4.
Center is described including its application to an advanced aircraft configuration. Addiliooally, future NASA Lewis ha<; taken the first geoeration research directiom in integrated CClOIrols are descn"bed. DMICS techoology and extIacted the benefits of the centralized design ml the partitioned approaches and Introdtx:tion conDined them into an aivaD::ed, or second generation approach for integrated control design, improving upon The research vision at the NASA Lewis the 1imitatioDs of the DMICS appro:des, The Research Center in the area of integrated fligbt and tec1mology is called Integrated Methodology for propulsion controls(IFPC)teclmologies is to penoun Propu1sionI~ Comrols (lMPAC). This paperwiU higb-payoff research that is focused on the critical needs describe the IMP AC m:thod m:l other research of our custom:rs, is collabOIative with our io:Jmtly and conducted in support of the developm:bt of this university partners ml includes nrcbanisms for teclmology. SecoOOly, this paperwiU discuss the vision effective teclmology transfer. The tecboology of of the IFPC team at NASA Lewis for:future research in iotegrated fligbtIpropuJsi comroIs is n:quired mx:n integrated controls.
aircraft coofiguratiom exhibit significant levels of coupling between the ~ ml propulsion system;.
Recogniziog that advanced ccmfiguratioos, SIdl as high IMPAC pettOllll3DCe militaly airaaft, Single Stage to Orbit vebicles, the High Speed Civil Transport, ml powered Atlowcbart of the IMPAC design approach is lift vehicles, would ex1nbit significant coupling. shown in FIgUre 1. The major IMPAC design steps are researclJers began to develop m::thods for designing (I) Generation of integrated aD:fianrJengine IDJdels for controls that would adequately address this coupling. control design; (2) Ceatra1ized control design Coupling can be addressed by looking at either the comic1ering the ~ m:l engine system as an "imler loop" of the IFPC. geueraIly associated with integrated system; (3) Partitioning of the centIaIized lmc ~ ml engine stability mllimit protection, controller into separate ~ m:l engine ml the "outer loop" of the IFPC, geoerally associated subcontrollers; (4) Operational flight envelope with the distribution of effector power to achieve expansion tbrougb. schednling of the partitioned desired aircraft cbaracteristics ml capabilities. subcootro1lers; (5) Nonlinear design SlX:h as iIX:orporation of limit logic for operational safety; ml The first significant atteIqlt at an advanced (6) Full system controller assembly m:l evaluation.
m:thod for designing integrated CClOIrols was the USAF These design steps are briefly described in the Design Methods for Integrated Controls (DMICS) following. A detailed description of the methodology Program. Two separate appro:des, one based upon is available in Ref [5].
ceDIralized design!, ml one based upon a partitioned designapproacJr, were developed mlapplied to anF18 Given that integrated, DODlinear dynamic configuration. Subsequently, the partitioned DMICS tmdels for the system are available, the first task in the approach was applied in the US/UK joint powered lift IMPAC design tmhodology involves generation of program. H:re the target application aircraft was a dynamic tmdels to be used for control law symhesis mxIified F16, called the E7D, for short takeoff and (Block I). These control design m:xJels are, in general.
vertica1lm:ling (STOVL) capability. The mxtifications traditional linear perturbation m:xJels of the system included a delta wing configuration. an ejector thrust taken at various operating points. An important issue in system, a ventralllOzzle, ml a reaction control system a centraJized linear IFPC design approach is bow nooIinearities of subsystems (e.g., propulsion system) design task (Block S) involves ~ for the effects will effect the validity of the ceotralized linear comrol of any additional subsystem. DODlinear.ities such as propulsion system safety limits. For example, the law syulbesis. Tberefon; some "cooJitioniog" of the CODtroI design Imdels, based on DOD1inear effects am propulsion system would n:quire exhaust nozzle area control design requirements, will be required to obtain control limit logic to emure that engine surge margim state-spa;:e dynamic models of the iDtegrated system are maintained. After the appropriate ~ 00DIr01 loops have been designed, the subcontroIlers can be that wiD. allow a "realistic" c:eotralized CXJDIroI design.
validated using the subsystem dynamic 1OOdels. The The ceDII3lized control design process (Block result of this task ~ the oonJinear limit and 3CC()J1JII' dation logic to be added to the full envelope 2) mes the full system scate-space Jinear control design IOOdels previously developed and ~ based on available subsystem CODlroIlers.
nmltivariable linear COIllroI design teclmiques that have the capability to ~ the IFPC requirements, for The :final task in the IMP AC design approach example a, based CXJDIroI synJhesis tec1miques [6]. ~ reassembly of the full envelope, ncmlioear subsystem.
Design criteria fOlJIPWrted fiom system petfODDaDCe controllers to faun the closed-loop integrated system.
requir~ and system open-loop dynamic studies Evaluations of the :final !FPC design can then be providethe~ control designspecificalions (e.g., petfonn::d using ~ sirnnlatioos as well as frequency or tim: depeodeot weighting factors) for the pilot-in-dJe..loop (PIlL) simJlatiom. These evaluations cOOsen linear design tec1mique. Because the linear would test the actual system petfOlID3DCe (e.g., barxDing quati1ies) against the desin:d system petfonnaoce CODtroI law syuIbesis tool may resuh in a high order ceoIIalized comroIler, CXJDIroIler onJcrn:duction may be specifications.
petfOIJDCd at this poiIIt in the m:Ihod. The result of this process ~ an operating point specific, ceotralized As with any design process, achieving linear feedback comroIler for the integrated system. acceptable control design using the IMP AC udlodology will involve iterations through the various <h:e an acceptable cezmalized c0mr01ler ~ design steps. However, the streogth of the IMP AC designed, it ~ partitioned into deceoIIalized approa;:h ~ that it considers the <XJIq)lete integrated subcODtroIlers (Block 3) using madc1iIatica1 teclmiques system at each design step am provides the designer the that have been developed, see for example Ref. [7]. meaDS to systematically assess the level of integrated The COIJlrollerpartitioning task requires that a candidate system petfOIIDaDCe degradation in going from one step CODIrol structure for the partitioned system be specified. to the other. The CODtroI designer can 1heo make some For example, for the !FPC problem. the assum:d COIJlroI "iote1ligeo1" trade-offs between comroller complexity structure is IDerarcbical with the airframe (flight) comrol am achieved petfonnance at each design. step, thus partition exercising ~ autborlty over the propulsion reducing the nmnber am severity of the design COIdroI partition. Comparisons betM:en the ceotralized iter.dions.
and partitioned linear controllers are mOOe to validate
the partitioning results as wen as acceptability of the
chosen decemralized control structure. The result of the STOVL IFPC Design comroIler partitioning task ~ a set of linear
subcomroIlers which match the petformance am IMP AC bas been applied to the design of an
robmtness cbaracteristics of the centralized c0ntr01lerto IFPC for the E7D STOVL corzfiguratioIf. This a specified toleraoce. configuration ~ shown in FIgUre 2. The emphasis bas been a design for the traIJsilion mode of flight with a After COl:q)letion of the operating point piloted, .fixed based evaluation of the approach.
specific linear partitioned subsystem control design, detailed mlividual subsystem DODlioear control design IIJJSt be petfonu::d. The fiIst step in the nonlinear FIgure 3 ~ a block diagram of the full cootrol design involves extension of the individual. imegrated flight am propu1sion control system. The subsystem comrollers to full envelope operation (Block main elemen1s of the IFPC system are briefly described 4) as defined by the system requicemeots. Typically in the following. The aid'rame CODlroI subsystem this would involve gain scbedu1ing of iodividual ~ of the following four main sections: the pilot gradients and COIDIlliIld limiting, the lateral controller operating point subc0Dtr01leIs to ~ for parameter and limit logic blocks, the longitudinal treaSUl'eDlf:nt variations due to change in operating coOOitioos. It ~ envisioned that use of IOOdem. robust COIllroI symbesis bleodiog, controller am limit logic blocks, am the tools to petfoan the linear control design tasks will ~ trim scbedules. The pilot gradient am reduce the complexity of controller scheduling. command limiting block provides rate and range limits
am scales the pilot effectors to appropriately sized
The second subsystem nonlinear couIrol commands. The resulting commands are then passed to both the lateral mJ longitudinal comroIlers. The lateral tracking tasks the pilot's objective was to Dl3in t ain CODIrOI system maintains closed-loop control of roll precise COIllrol of the f1igbt path syuilol by overlayiog rate, yaw rate ml the sideslip angle using the ailerom, it on a ghost guidarx:e syuilol mDch is progIammed to fly an optimal trajectoly to a sUDlJatM laodiog. Forthe nxJder, ml roll mJ yaw RCS. The 1oogitOOina1 control system maintains closed-loop control of pitch abort sequence ml geoeral maoeuvernbility tasks, the angle ml I3le, forward velocity ml ~ mJ pilot's objective was to assess the CODIroDability ml the flight path angle using the elevons, aft nozzle angle, prectictability of the aircraft lespome during excessive veolIal nozzle angle, pitch Res, mJ dnust from the aft excmsiom from the nomina1 flight path.
ml veDlral nozzles aId the ejectoJ:s. The trim scbedules provide the nominal steady state operating Two pilots, one with V/STOL ml powered- poiot infOJIDalion for an of the a::tualOIs, including the lift aiICraft experience, ml the other with extensive nominal thrust values. The limit protection sc1JeIre fighter aircraft experience, perfotm:d piloted, fixed- bomKJs the bani actuator limits for both the lateral mJ based simiJation evaluations of the IMP AC design.
1oogitOOina1 controllers ml provides limit iofonnation Example aircrnft response tim': histories for the vertical back to the nominal. controllers to preveo1 integrator ml conb:ined tracking tasks are shown in figures 4 ml wioiup ml to maintain closed-loop stability mDle 5, respectively. As seenfromFIgUre 4, the IFPC design tIying to maintain closed-loop perfonmoce. tigbtly acceleralion ml velocity COOlll3ndS the fiigbIpalh conmand is also tracked weD. altbough there The eogioe 00DIr01 subsystem a:;ts on dnust is SOIre delay in response due to comrol cnmrmmication CCH'OII3.JdS :from the 1oogitOOina1 CODIrOI system The delays. There is SOlD: initial pitch deviation due to ~ trim sch:du1es also provide dnust trim deceleration CX1IDi1lIll¥l mDch the pilots feh could be COlDID3IXls ml gain !iCOOiutiog variables to the engine ~ in iostrurIall flight. The results in FIgUre sobcooIroller. The engine subcontroller consists of the 5 also show tight tracking of the velocity OI,n In 13m as following four main sections: the fan speed schedule, well as the bank angle ml beading COl.' !lands,. The vety small sideslip response indicates good 1mn the nominal eogioe controller, the safety ml actuator limit logic, mlthe thrust estimator. The fan speed is COOIdiDation wbicb will resuh in significant n:duction in scbedlJled as a fuB:tion of the total COIIAII!II'W thrust. pilot worldoad.
The nominal engine controller maintains closed-loop COIJIroI over fan speed ml the three estimatoo eogioe The pilot COltJllJeDlS revealed good vertical dnusts (aft ml ventral D022'les ml ejectoJ:s). While fan fligbIpaIh tr.diog with excellent decoupling from speed is measured directly, a m:asme of actual engine velocity ml lateral response. Also, the con:m:ots dnust is not available, so a nooliDear static model of the reflected a good capability to majntaio steady engioe provides estimates of the engioe dnusts given deceleJation while trac1cing the ghost syn:ix>l to a the available eogioe information. The eogioe achieves sjrnnJaterl lm:Uog. The pilots could successfully the closed-loop control by manipulating the fuel fiow, perfoan abort sequences ml large maneuvetability the ejector buUerfly valve position, ml the aft ml changes without loss of 00DIr01 predictability or veolIal nozzle areas. The eogioe limit logic contains excessive woddoad. There did exist, however, actuator I3le ml r.mge bomKJs ml operational limits l.JbXi! IUt I3Med pitch deviations due to coupling with for the engine, consisting of the acceJldeoel fuel flow fligbtpath ml acceleration COilO'I3OOS. These pitch limits, the fan stall nmgin, minUulDD burner pressure, deviations could ~ objectionable in ImVing base ml fan rotor overspeed. Limit infounation is fed back siomlation ml imicated a need for better pitch to the nominal control system to maintain stability regulation in the integrated comrol design. ~ pitch during limit cooditioos. A secool version of the dnust deviations occmred due to coupJiog of pitch ml estimator is used to calculate thrust bomKJs based on the deceleJation CX1IDi1lIll¥ls caused by actuator saturations engioe accelIdeoel scbedule. These dnust bomKJs are from the engine CODIroL Overall, the integrated control fed back to the 1oogitOOina1 controller actuator limit design gave SIx:cessful performaoce in its first piloted block to provide thrust COiDIll3Id limits for the simulation of the STOVL maneuvers, and this stOOy JooginxJjnaJ controller. assisted in xeveaIing improvemcms for an integIaled control redesign.
In on:Ier to evaluate the perfonmoce of the iotegrnted control design, a piloted simulation was perfOIm:d on the fixed base f1igb1 siomIator. The major objectives of the piloted evaluation were to assess Cmrent and Future Directions controllability, perfOlID3IlCe ml wOddoal during a series of four flight scenarios. The four scenarios Curreotly, the NASA Lewis !FPC program is included a vertical tracking task, a combined progressing on three froms. FJISt, we are continuing to longitudinal. mllateral tracking _ an abort sequence, develop the IMP AC ndJod by additional resemch into ml a general maneuverability sequence. For the the application of genetic search algotitbms to integrated control H:re tbe idea is to apply geoetic Second, there is a need for a successful, full approaches to improve tbe ~ phase of tbe scale, fIigb1 denDo:aIation oftbe payoff of an integrated design by iuproviDg tbe optimization approach. CODIroIs design on an advaoced coofigutation. Such a
deImnstration is an expensive poposition am will
Second, we are e:tq>basizing transfer of tbe uOOoubtedly require tbe resources of IDJCe that a single bS teclmo1ogies deumstrated in tbe IMPAC srOVL orgaoization IeSUlting in a cooperative program of application to tbe private sector. These specificaIIy national or intematiooal scope.
include tbe H I:ofioity design experience gained, ~
new am effective ways to bm::IIe integratorwiOOup am
Thirdly, tbe IMP AC method bas been
actuator saturation in mu1tivariable systems, am tbe
successfully applied to tbe "i:ooer loop" c:omrol design IMP AC method itself.
problem. The next step will be to mxtifY tbe approach to enable highly m:cessful "outer loop" c:omrol system 1hinl, we are beginuiug a program to develop designs. This will enable tbe ~ to attack both a software based tool that will embody the IMP AC aspects of a complete imegrated fligbtIpropu1si pbiIosophy for integrated controls design. It is tbe control system.
vision that this software package will establish an architecture that will not only encompass tbe IMP AC Concluding Rem:uks approach but also will include other design methods that have been proposed for app1ica1ion to integrated NASA Lewis Research Ce:uter (!.eRC) CODIrOIs design. For example, NASA Langley bas researchers have developed a sec:om generation developed excellent tools for tbe antmnafM design of integrated controls design methodology and flight cooIrol systems. These tools are based upon deimns1rated tbe methodology through iotegrated several years of xesearch in areas such as Direct flightIpropulsion conIrol design for a complex Short Eigenvalue assignm:ntl°, am Stocbastic Optimization TaJre..Off and Vertic:al I.anding airaaft c:oufiguration.
FeedbacklFeedforward Teclmology (SOWI)lI. These Cum:m integrated controls activities at LeRC D:lude teclmologies, particuJady SOFFT, could be used within transfer of tbe integrated controls tecImoIogies to tbe tbe IMP AC fiamewoIk to ped'onn tbe centralized ~ iOOustIytbrougb. cootracted programs, further
design am poteDtiaIly tbe partitioning phases, or in a
deveJopmeot of tbe metlxxJology through iIHlouse and stml alone m:x1e for flight controls. FmaDy, it is spomored research at universities, and developm::ut of
believed that a careful architecture definition am tbe
a COIq)Uter aided software design tool for integrated avai1ability of eo:ix:dded expert design advice would COIdroI system design. It is envisioned that these
make such a software design tool a powedUl am
activities will result in Dxfustry acceptm:e of tbe extremely useful capability. This would establish a de advauced iolegmted comrol design tecboiques and will fa::to stmIard to heJp focus future iotegrated controls allow for radical new aerospace vehicle designs that
tools am methods developm:nt formaximum impact at
repieseu1 sigrrificanl perfoonance improvemeDts over minimnm inveslm:ot current configurations.
In the future, we see three iIqJort.ant needs in tbe area of integrated controls. The first, as already discussed, would be tbe completion of a prototype software design capability for iIJtegrated comrols. It is 1.
Smith. KL, "Design Methods for I:otegrated obviously bigbly desirable that this design capability Control Systems," AFWAL-1R.-86-2103, redu;:e design ~ tim: and yield DJJCh JDJIe robust Wright PatteIson AFB, OH, December 1986.
control designs. AdditionaIly, and perllaps JDJIe importautly in tbe long nm, such a design capability 2. Shaw, PD., Rock, SM, and Flsk, W.S., should enable a new level of interaction between "Design Me1hods for Integrated Control 00va0ced configuration designers and fligbtIpropuJsi Systems,"AFWAL-TR-88-2061, Wright subsystem specialists. In tbe future, IdvaDced Patterson AFB, OH, .June 1988.
COIJfiguratiom could begin to em::rge that exploit high degrees of coupling, enabled by robust !FPC. It is tbe 3.
Adibbatla, S., et aL, "SI'OVL Controls opinion oftbe authors that tbe past pm;;tioe in advm:ed Teclmology," final report for NASA COD1ract designs resulted in compromised designs that avoided No. NAS3-25193, General Electric Airaaft coupling. This was an admission that in tbe past it was Engines, EveOOale, OH, March 1994.
too difficult or too complex to perfonn successful inlegraled desigm. Such a new capability would free 4. Weiss, C. et aL, "STOVL Controls futegration tbe advanced designer to look for and achieve Program, " final report for NASA contract No.
poteDtiaIly radical desigm that would represent NAS3-25194, Pratt & Whitney, West Pahn sigDificaat improvemeDts in ped'onnaoce. Beach, rL, October 1993.
5. Garg, S., Ouzts, P., l.OR:nzo, C.F., and Mattem, DL, "IMPAC - an Iotegrated Methodology for Propulsion and ~ Control," 1991.Am:rican Control CoufereJX:e, Boston, MA, JUDe 1991.
6. Garg, S., "Robmt Integrated FligbttPropolsion Control Design for a STOVL Aircraft Using H-1Dfinity Control Design Teclmiques," AIaomatica, VoL 29, No.1, pp. 129-145, 1993.
7. Garg, S., "Partitioning of Ceotralized Integrated F1igbtIPropu1si Control Design for Decentralized Jmp1enx:ntation, " /FEE Trons. on Control Systems Technology, Vol 1, No. 2, pp. 93-100, 1993.
8. Garg, S., Mattem, D., "Application of an Integrated M=tbodoiogy for Propulsion and Aidiame Control Design to a STOVL Aircraft," AIAA 1994.
9. Bright, M, Siam, D., Garg, S., Mattern, D., Ranaudo, R, 0'D000gbue, D., "Piloted Evaluation of an Integrated ~logy for Prop7u1sion and ~ Control Design."
10. 0str01l: Aaron J.; and Proffitt, Melissa S.: Troggitndinal-Cootrol Design Approach for High-Angle=of-Attack Aircraft. NASA 1P 3302, Feb. '93.
11. Halyo, Nesim; Direskeoeli, Halduo; and Taylor, Deborah B.: A Stoc:lmlic Optimal Feedfmwani and Feedback Control Methodology for Superagility. NASA CR.- 4471, Nov. 1992.
I Nonlinc::u- I
dynamic models J
L_-. __
Control model generation ...L __
I Control Design I
L ReqUire~n~ J l':lrtiuooed subS)'ltem linear COtI1rOllers . Subsystem control design
I
I
--'- --'-
Full envelope Full envelope subsystem comro1 design subsystem contro1 design r------.
Pilot-in-the-loop I
evaluation _____ -l Figure 1.-IMPAC FlowcharL Yectorable 2D/CD rr.ain noZZle 7 / / / / Yaw RCS thrusters PitchRCS RoliRCS thruster thrusters Figure 2.-E7D Aircraft Configuration.
Airframe Control SubSystem Engine Control Subsystem
--L~~~-Fe~db~~~--~------~----T-------------------------T;--~ ... Lateral To Airframe Actuators Engine I 1 Actuators Pilot
- Controller : , Ambient Conditions i
Roll.
Inputs "I Engine Trim Schedules Yaw Rate. &
r-------.,7 : (includes fan speed schedule) t--
Sideslip Cmds Airframe
~ 1 J Trim Thrusts
L- Trim 1 I Pilot y .... j
I
scheduling variables
Velocity &" Schedules
Gradients 1 I flight path and
1.= I
aero cmds ~:~ : I-Engine- - - - - -Safe;-l ~ommand trims Limiting
~ : ~: Fan I Controller u T and' I
Forward Velocity c
U I rJ I Speed ~ : U Actuator I
Pitch Rate and
, ,I::::: II Schedule I I~ ~(s) : K An':; Limits I
Flight Path Angle
r-----"--~ I I 1 . =- Logic
blended cmds
Longitudinal f---7 thrustbmds I - r ~ eu - ! lllimi
-------~~ Controller I + I ~ II
Lomdtudinal Feedbacks L...- ____ --J - I I - l Washout I I
~ I thrust Filter J
.... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i bounds I f:m speed I I
: I Thrust Engine Measu~F-ent ~ ~
i =Js ~_Es~~r_l ___ J_~: 1 Estimator accel/decel fuellflow I
~--------------- -- ----- -----
Figure 3.-Partitioned, Integrated Controller with Details of Engine Controller.
N:llion31 ,\(,rI'n:lUtit."S ~1Il1 ADVANCED CONTROLS Sr~('(' Ac.lmini~r::tion LewIs Rese:lfch Center TECHNOLOGY
•
PILOTED SIMULATION RESULTS
• VCJ1k:ll Tr:ICkillp' Task
... :", 0 D' - Comm3nd I i::: -0.4 _e"
- -' Rc.~l1l$c
• > -0.8 I...._e_e-;.:.-::.::-- ___ --=.;:.:.:..."C'--;---_--.-.-_~--J
-- < .... -,.
-·'~--~i------~--~--~i----~--~T~--~--~ ~ ::rt -'-- ~--~- ................ - -~--r--=--.........r .e-..............: ~.. ...............: ~I ,I - " '32 .::.-..---' c - -- -::=::-- ., __=_ __ • ----=-r-<.
_ _ -_.-- '--" <..:..- - , i
°e' I
! : t \. .. ;""' .......... '-- ... , .". ..' " ....... '" " ..... j
X(l
o 10 20 30 40 50 GO 70
11IIle (sec) Figure 4.-Example 11lDe Histories for Vertical Tracking Task.
NatiOJUl Aeronautics and ADVANCED CONTROLS Spacc Adminisu:uion TECHNOLOGY Lewis Research Center
•
PILOTED SIMl1LATION RESULTS (contd.)
so
o Figure S.-Example Tune Histories for Combined Tracking Task.
Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden lor this collection 01 inlormation is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time lor reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, galhering and maintaining the data needed. and CO!Tl)leting and reviewing the collection oIlnlormatlon. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 01 this collectiOn oIlnIormation. including sug~estlons lor reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate lor Inlormation Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, SuHe 1204, Arlington. A 22202-4302, and to the Office 01 Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704·0188), Wasllington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leaveblan/<) 13. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 12. REPORT DATE September 1995 Technical Memorandum 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Integrated Flight and Propulsion Controls for Advanced Aircraft Configurations WU-505-62-50 6. AUTHOR(S) Walter Merrill and Sanjay Garg 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center E-9928 Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 9. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASATM-I07067 Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Prepared for the 86th Meeting on Advanced Aeroengine Concepts and Controls sponsored by the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Seattle, Washington, September 24-29, 1995. Responsible person, Walter Merrill, organization code 2550, (216) 433-6328.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Unclassified - Unlimited Subject Category 08 This publication is available from the NASA Center for Aerospace Infonnation. (301) 621"'{)390.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) The research vision of the NASA Lewis Research Center in the area of integrated flight and propulsion controls technolo- gies is descnbed In particular the Integrated Method for Propulsion and Airframe Controls developed at the Lewis Research Center is described including its application to an advanced aircraft configuration. Additionally, future research directions in integrated controls are described.
15. NUMBER OF PAGES 14. SUBJECT TERMS Integrated flight and propulsion control; Piloted simulations 16. PRICE CODE A02 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102