Accepted Manuscript

Investigation of Longitudinal Aerodynamic Parameter Identification Method for Fly-By-Wire Passenger Airliner Wu Zhao, Wang Lixin, Xu Zijian, Tan Xiangsheng PII: DOI: Reference: To appear in: Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date: 18 March 2013 7 May 2013 13 June 2013 S1000-9361(13)00164-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2013.07.028 CJA 166

Please cite this article as: W. Zhao, W. Lixin, X. Zijian, T. Xiangsheng, Investigation of Longitudinal Aerodynamic Parameter Identification Method for Fly-By-Wire Passenger Airliner, (2013), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cja. 2013.07.028

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Investigation of Longitudinal Aerodynamic Parameter Identification Method for Fly-By-Wire Passenger Airliner
WU Zhao
a b

, WANG Lixina*, XU Zijiana, TAN Xiangshengb

School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China Flight Test Center of Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Shanghai 200120, China Received 18 March 2013; revised 7 May 2013; accepted 13 June 2013

Abstract The flight control system of fly-by-wire (FBW) passenger airliner with complex framework and high feedback gain augmentation, would change the original characteristic of loaded signal and suppress the excitation of airplanes pertinent motion modes. Taking a research example of FBW passenger airliner model with longitudinal relaxed-static-stability, a new method of signal type selection and signal parameter design is proposed, through analysis of signal energy distribution and plane bodys frequency response. According to CCAR60 the appraisal and use regulation of flight simulator device, the simulation validation of FBW passenger airliners longitudinal aerodynamic parameters identification is put forward. The validation result indicates that the designed signal could excite the longitudinal motion mode of FBW passenger airliner adequately and the multiparameter comparison in simulation meets the objective test request of CCAR60. Meanwhile, the relative errors of aerodynamic parameters are less than 10%.
Keywords: fly-by-wire passenger airliner; high feedback gain augmentation; longitudinal aerodynamic parameter;

excitation signal design; identification; simulation validation; CCAR60

1. Introduction1 The computation method of unsteady transonic flow based on N-S equations should be best accurate, but to three-dimensional complex problems, it can be achieved Aerodynamic parameter identification is to obtain the airframes aerodynamic parameters from flight test data, based on the principle of dynamic system identification. This technology is widely used in flight dynamic model modifying, flight control law design, flight envelope expansion, flight simulator development and so on1-2. Currently, the domestic research in this field mostly focuses on the airplane with open-loop control system and simple closed-loop control system2, lacking of large-scale FBW passenger airliner with complex and high feedback gain augmentation. As a safety precaution, the flight control system can not be turned off actively during flight test. So the aerodynamic parameter identification for this category of airplane is a problem of closed-loop identification. On this issue, there are two solutions conventionally3-6: one approach is to identify flight control parameters and airframes aerodynamic parameters in two steps, so called closed-loop identification method. The other approach is to identify the airframes aerodynamic parameters only, using airplanes control surface deflections and flight status data directly, so called open-loop identification method. Since the former approach requires more rigorous information on flight control system and flight data, it is adopted hardly, and the later approach is more applied in engineering. In the open-loop identification for large-scale FBW passenger airliner, the high feedback gain augmentation changes the excitation signal loaded externally, causing the deflections of airplanes control surfaces different from anticipation, and affecting the airplanes response characteristic. It also greatly suppresses the excitation of airplanes motion mode and finally makes difficulties in aerodynamic parameter identification7-9. To the FBW passenger airliner model with longitudinal relaxed-static-stability10-12, comparing the different effects of simple closed-loop control airplane and complex closed-loop control airplane, this article emphasizes on the excitation signal design for longitudinal aerodynamic parameter identification and proposes a new method of signal type selection and signal parameter design. In reference to CCAR60, the validation result of longitudinal parameter identification is brought forward. 2. Problem Analysis and Investigation Method

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-10-82338821. E-mail address: bhu_wlx@tom.com

2.1. Problem analysis The flight control system of FBW passenger airliner can not be turned off during flight test for aerodynamic parameter identification. Therefore, the excitation signal loaded externally is continually affected by the feedback signal, which is generated by high feedback gain augmentation. Comparing with simple closed-loop control airplane, the passenger airliner with FBW control system has complex framework and high feedback gain. Fig. 1 shows the simple control framework with the feedback of attack angle and pitch rate. The longitudinal flight control law framework of FBW passenger airliner is presented in Fig. 2. The difference between those two categories of flight control system would cause the different change of loaded signal, and finally result in different deflections of airplanes control surface.

ec
Kq
K

Fig. 1. Simple closed-loop control framework.

FN

Nz

Kq

K Nz
K q1

K Nz1

Fig. 2. Flight control framework of FBW passenger airliner.

The signal 3211, which is commonly used as excitation signal in airplane aerodynamic parameter identification, is loaded onto both of those two categories of airplanes elevator module. The comparison of deflection signal and origin signal loaded is presented in Fig. 3.
80 60 40
A/

Origin Signal loaded Deflection Signal of FBW Control Aircraft Deflection Signal of Simple Control Aircraft

20 0 -20 -40

0 5 10 t / s Fig. 3. Comparison of deflection signals and origin signal loaded.

15

The comparison result in Fig. 3 demonstrates that the origin signal loaded is less affected by simple closed-loop flight control system and therefore the deflection signal is same to it almost. Simultaneously, the flight control system of FBW passenger airliner influences the origin signal greatly. Consequently, during the excitation signal design for FBW passenger airliner, the influence on loaded signal by high feedback gain augmentation should be considered to guarantee the actual deflection excite airplanes longitudinal motion model adequately. 2.2. Investigation method For the research example of FBW passenger airliner, the simulation result of this model (seen in Fig. 2) is used as virtual flight test data, whose functions are as followings: (1) as input data in longitudinal

aerodynamic parameter identification; (2) as reference flight data in validation, which is to compare with the simulation of identified model. The Investigation method in this article is illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Simple closed-loop control framework.

3. Identification Model and Method According to the fundamental principle of airplanes aerodynamic parameter identification[13] presented in Fig. 5, the four techniques of identification model, method, excitation signal and model validation are confirmed.

Fig. 5. Fundamental principle of airplanes aerodynamic parameter identification.

3.1. Identification model Since the modern passenger airliner usually fly in a small angle of attack, the linear identification model is adopted as following14:
x = Ax + Bu y = Cx + Du

(1)

Given the velocity of airplane varies hardly and the angle of attack is small, then the relationship is

V = a xk Vzb Vxb a zb V
Therefore the expression (1) can be rewritten as

(2)

x = Ax + Bu y = Cx + Du
Where the control input parameters, state parameters and observation parameters are respectively

(3)

u = [ e ] ,

x = [ V

q] ,
T

y = [ a xk

a zb

q]

(4)

And the matrix of A , B , C and D are respectively

XV A= Z V M V M ZV X + g Z M M Z 0 1 M q + M g 0 , 0 X e B= Z e M e M Z e

XV C = Z V V0 M V M ZV

X + g Z V0 M M Z

0 1V0 M q + M

g 0 , 0

X e D = Z e V0 M e M Z e

(5)

Where V0 the fiducial flight velocity, e the deflection of elevator, axk the airplane acceleration along the X axes of flight-path coordinate system, a zb the airplane acceleration along the Z axes of fuselage coordinate system, X i , Z i , M i ( i = V , , q, , e ) model parameters to be identified. 3.2. Identification method The principle of least square estimation is advanced to estimate the parameters in identification model. The main idea of least square principle is to search the values of those identification parameters, which determine the longitudinal flight observation closest to measured flight status data in terms of squared difference for a given excitation signal. The arithmetic of generic least square is applied to accomplish the parameter estimation in least square principle15. The identification model can be described by

z = H +

(6)

where z observation parameter, H observation matrix, parameter to be estimated, observation noise. To get , the value of the following principle function should be minimum:

J = T = ( z H )T ( z H )
can be solved by The expression of least square value LS

(7)

LS = ( H T H ) 1 H T z
4. Excitation Signal Design

(8)

The function of excitation signal is to control airplanes surfaces as expectation, which would make the pertinent airplane motion response appear and finally ensure the longitudinal motion characteristic can be reflected in flight data fully. Consequently, the chief principia of longitudinal excitation signal design is to ensure the deflection signal, which is influenced by high feedback gain augmentation, can adequately and effectively excite the longitudinal motion mode in the concerned frequency range. Commonly, a pilot can not manually produce maneuvers that satisfy the requirement of identification. In some flight tests16-18, the signal generation device is installed in the airplane, which is triggered by pilot or controlled by remote ground computer. The design of excitation signal comprises of the signal type selection and parameter design. Currently, square wave, dipole square wave, 3211 multipolar square wave, sine and frequency sweep 19, are studied mostly. Due to the unitary deflection of square wave and single frequency of sine, they are not suitable for excitation signal relatively. In the selection of signal type, considering the different influences on the loaded signal by high feedback gain augmentation, the type of signal which is impacted minimally is fit to excitated airplane motion mode, through spectral analysis of signal before and after change. In the design of signal parameter, the preliminary airplane longitudinal dynamic linear state equation should be established by using known data firstly. Secondly, the concerned frequency range of signal can be found through frequency response analysis of lift, drag and pitch moment equations. Thirdly, the signal parameters can be designed using fast Fourier transform technique, in the precondition of concerned frequency range satisfied.

As described above, the design procedure of excitation signal is presented in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. The design procedure of excitation signal.

4.1. The selection of signal type

According to the design method of excitation signal, three types of signal loaded in the elevator module of research airplane are dipole square wave, 3211 multipolar square wave and frequency sweep. The shape changes of three signal types in time domain are presented in Fig. 7, demonstrating that 3211 multipolar square wave and dipole square wave change signal shape obviously. Meanwhile the frequency sweep changes less, with amplitude decreasing and frequency little vary.
60 40 20
A/
60

Origin Signal Final Signal

A/

40 20 0 -20 -40

Origin Signal Final Signal

-20 -40 -60 0 5 10 15

T/s

-60 0

T/s

10

15

(a) 3211 multipolar square wave

40 30 20 10
A/

(b) dipole square wave

Origin Signal Final Signal

-10 -20 -30 0 10 20 T/s 30 40 50

(c) frequency sweep

Fig. 7. The shape changes of three signal types in time domain.

The spectral analysis of origin signals loaded and final signals influenced by high feedback gain augmentation can be obtained through Fast Fourier Transform (Fig. 8), presenting the signal energy distribution variation in frequency domain.
1200 1000 800
|F|

1500
Origin Signal Final Signal

1250 1000
|F|

Origin Signal Final Signal

600 400 200 0 10

-1

750 500 250 0

10 / rad/s

10

10

-1

10 / rad/s

10

(a) 3211 multipolar square wave

(b) dipole square wave

8000 Origin Signal Final Signal 6000

|F|

4000

2000

0 -1 10

10 / rad/s

10

(c) frequency sweep Fig. 8. The energy distribution variation of three signal types in frequency domain. The Fig. 8 shows that (1) the spectral shapes of 3211 multipolar square wave and dipole square are changed obviously and the frequency ranges of signal energy distribution are becoming narrow and (2) the spectral shape variation of frequency sweep is smaller than the former two signal types and its frequency range vary hardly. As above analyzed, the high feedback gain augmentation of FBW passenger airliner, would distinctly change the shapes of following signal types -- 3211 mulitpolar square wave and dipole square while the frequency sweep signal change not clearly. In essence, the high feedback gain augmentation would change the frequency ranges of those former two signal types greatly, but not to the third signal type. Therefore, the final deflection signal yield form frequency sweep could control elevator in according with excitation signal designed. From above, considering the requirement of excitation signal design principle, the frequency sweep is fit to be the excitation signal of longitudinal aerodynamic parameter identification for FBW passenger airliner. 4.2. The design of signal parameters
The signal parameters of linear frequency sweep are the high frequency ending high, low frequency ending low, amplitude |A| and duration T. The first two signal parameters are the most important elements, which determine the frequency range of signal energy distribution. Actually, the content of frequency sweep design is to get those four signal parameters. (1) The high frequency ending high For the research example, the airplanes longitudinal linear state matrix is established. Using Bode diagram, the frequency response analysis of drag, lift and pitch moment equations is carried out to observe the aerodynamic parameters frequency response along with the frequency variation of elevator deflection signal. The frequency range with large amplitude response is the concerned frequency range. The appropriate excitation signal would have high level of energy relatively in that range. Taking pitch moment for example to demonstrate the computation method of concerned frequency ranges high frequency ending high. The parameters in expression (3) can be rewritten as M V = M V M ZV , Mq = M q + M , M = M M Z

M e = M e M Z e

(9)

The amplitude response curves of MV , M , M q , M e and q in frequency domain -M V e , M e , M q e , M e e and q e are presented in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9 The amplitude response of pitch moment parameters in frequency domain. Fig. 9 shows that while the signal frequency of elevator deflection exceed a specific range, most of the amplitude response of pitch moment parameters descend, demonstrating the accuracy of those parameters identification become low obviously. To get large amplitude response and accurate identification result of aerodynamic parameters, the excitation signal should be in some specific frequency range. Generally, the rigid motion mode frequency of airplane varies from 0.1 ~ 10rad/s13. As seen in Fig. 9, in that frequency rang, |A1| is the descend extent of frequency response corresponding to high.i, which is determined by Mi (i = V , , q, , e ) and |A2| is the maximal descend extent of frequency response of pitch moment parameter Mi. To get large amplitude response of Mi, the |A1| shouldnt exceed 60~70% of | A2|. This can be expressed by
| A1 | (0.6 ~ 0.7) | A2 |

(10)

According to expression (10), the highest frequency highV , high and highq , which are determined by Mi are respectively 2.20rad/s, 2.07rad/s and 1.85rad/s. For all of the pitch moment parameters Mi should be identified accurately, the highest frequency highM can be gotten by

highM = min(highV , high , highq )

= min(2.20, 2.07,1.85) = 1.85rad / s (11)

The drag and lift equation of airplanes longitudinal linear state matrix can be analyzed in the same way. The highest frequency high X , highZ determined by drag and lift parameters can be gotten

high X = 1.43rad / s ,

highZ = 1.37rad / s

(12)

For all the aerodynamic parameters should be identified accurately, the upper limitation of high in the concerned frequency range could be gotten by

highup = min(highM , highZ , high X )

= min(1.85,1.37,1.43) = 1.37rad / s The short period mode frequency of the research airplane sp is 0.54rad/s. Therefore, highup -the upper limitation of high in the concerned frequency range is approximately 3 times of the longitudinal short period mode frequency sp . That means when the excitation signal frequency exceeds this range, the identification result is becoming worse relatively. Simultaneously, the frequency range must include the frequency of short period mode sp . Therefore, the lower limitation of high should greater than sp . Otherwise, the concerned frequency of excitation signal may not cover it. As above represented, for longitudinal aerodynamic parameter identification of FBW passenger airliner, high -- the high frequency ending of excitation signal can be set as (13)

high = sp ~ 3sp

(14)

(2) The low frequency ending low As seen in Fig. 9, when the frequency of excitation signal is low, the amplitude of frequency response is still high, which means the identification result is good. For the frequency range should include the frequency of phugoid mode p as much as possible, the low frequency ending low could be set as p . The phugoid mode frequency of the research airplane is 0.15rad/s. (3) The amplitude |A| The amplitude of excitation signal should be appropriate, ensuring the final signal influenced by high feedback gain augmentation not large or tiny. If the excitation signal amplitude is large too much, the flight status range will be too wide, introducing nonlinear aerodynamic influence. If the excitation signals amplitude is inadequate, the excitation of airplanes pertinent motion mode would not be obvious and the flight status will be more easily influenced by measure noise20. Meanwhile, the signal amplitude is also constrained by the division of identification status range21-22. Therefore, the amplitude of excitation signal can be ascertained by the requirement of attack angle range, considering high feedback gain augmentation. In this article, the amplitude of excitation signal can be set as 20to make the research airplanes attack angle rangeability is 2. (4) The duration T The duration T of frequency sweep signal can not change the frequency range of signal energy distribution. But it could make the energy density grow greater when it become longer, demonstrating that the elevator deflection signal has more energy to excite airplanes motion mode. In this article, the signal duration is usually set as simulation time. From the above, for the research airplane model, a suitable frequency sweep signal can be set as

l ow = p = 0.15rad / s ,

hi gh = sp ~ 3sp = 0.54 ~ 1.62rad / s

(15)

When this signal design method is applied to engineering, sp and p can be gotten by wind tunnel test data preliminarily. After frequency sweep loaded onto the research airplane model, the identification results using the identification model in Section 3.1 and parameter estimation method in Section 3.2, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of parameter identification results between different frequency sweep
Identification parameter Reference value =2.75~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=50/50s =1.50~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=50/50s =1.50~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=30/50s =2.75~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=11/23s =2.75~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=1/23s Relative error /% =2.75~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=3/23s =1.50~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=3/11s =1.50~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=3/6s =1.50~0.15rad/s, |A|=5, T=50/50s =0.50~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=50/50s =0.15~0.50rad/s, |A|=20, T=50/50s =0.20~0.15rad/s, |A|=20, T=50/50s

Z
-0.45 -3.2 -3.5 -2.7 -5.3 -3.8 -5.5 -4.3 +7.4 -4.2 +1.1 -6.0 -58.2

M
-0.11 +36.4 +8.5 +5.7 +7.6 +24.5 +7.8 +12.5 +90.0 +9.5 +2.3 -14.7 -66.5

Mq
-0.37 -7.4 -3.3 -2.8 -3.0 -8.9 -3.5 -4.6 -10.2 -3.3 -1.9 +16.7 +44.9

Z e
-0.02 -7.6 -6.7 -9.9 -5.2 -7.9 -8.0 -8.7 -9.4 -7.4 -13.1 -71.2 +447

M e
-0.27 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.9 -0.3 -0.2 +5.8 +9.7

In Table 1, = 2.75~0.15rad/s means the initial frequency of sweep is 2.75rad/s and the ending frequency is 0.15rad/s. |A| means the signal amplitude, and T = 3/6s means the signal duration is 3s and the simulation time is 6s. The results in Table 1 show that (1) When the signal frequency in the designed range, the identification result is accurate. Otherwise, the accuracy of parameter identification descends distinctly. (2) In the designed frequency range, while the initial frequency is greater than the ending frequency, the identification result is more accurate, especially for the aerodynamic parameter Z e . This conclusion is consistent with the phenomenon that short period mode which is high-frequency, appears

earlier than phugoid mode which is low-frequency. (3) In the linear aerodynamic range, the greater the signal amplitude is, the better the identification result is. (4) For the research airplane, the identification result becomes worse when the signal duration less than 3s. Consequently, its suggested that the signal duration is at least greater than the period of airplanes short period motion. (5) The time-length of flight data, which is used as input data in identification, has influence on identification result. When the time-length is shorter than the period of phugoid motion, the information of airplanes motion characteristic in flight data is insufficient, causing bad identification result. According to the result in Table 1, its suggested that the time-length of flight data is at least greater than the period of airframes phugoid motion.

5. Identification Result Validation

The identification result should be validated before being applied to engineering. The common validation of aerodynamic parameter identification is loading specific deflection signal of control surface onto the identified model and comparing the response history between the identified model and research airplane model. In the engineering, the validation of identification result is loading deflection signal in flight data onto the identified model and comparing its response with the real flight status data. In according with the objective test request of CCAR60 -- the appraisal and use regulation of flight simulator device, the comparison of response history between the research airplane model and the identified model is done to accomplish the simulation validation through the test subject of phugoid and short period motion. Its noted that the objective validation test is to checkup the whole flight simulator device. Therefore, the test should be done in the normal and abnormal flight control states. But the object of validation in this article is the aerodynamic model only. Consequently, the flight control system in simulation model should be cut off to ensure the airplanes deflections are the same. The identification validation in the third excitation signal is presented in Fig. 10 and Table 2.
15 10

e /

5 0

-5 -10 -15 0 2 4

T / s

10

(a)
70

the deflection signal of validation

V / m/s

q / /s

68 66 10

0 The Response of Research Airplane The Response of Airplane Identified

-3 15

6 0 10

The Response of Research Airplane The Response of Airplane Identified 20 30 40 50

10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

T / s

T / s

(b) the comparison of longitudinal flight status Fig. 10 The response comparison between two models. Table 2 Comparison of response between two models according with CCAR60
Validation subject Phugoid characteristic Contrast parameter Period Half - attenuation time Pitch angle or pitch rate Acceleration Provision tolerance 10% 10% 1.5 1.2/s 0.1g Actual error 2.703% 2.785% 0.566 0.077/s 0.029g

Short period characteristic

Fig. 10 and Table 2 demonstrate that the identification result in this excitation signal is accurate, and

the relative error of contrast parameter is less than provision tolerance, according with CCAR60. Consequently, the characteristic of the identified model is the same to the research airplane almost. The following items should be noted when apply this validation method into engineering: (1) The virtual flight test validation data is displaced by the actual flight test data, as the reference data in the response comparison. (2) The actual airplanes deflection is input to the model identified in simulation. Meanwhile, the flight control system of this simulation model should be cut off. This is because the actual deflection signal in the flight data is the addition of the loaded excitation signal and signal fed back by flight control system. In the simulation validation, if the actual deflection is input to airplane model and flight control system is not cut off, then the feedback influence on excitation signal is considered repeatedly and the deflection signal in simulation model is different from the actual deflection signal in flight test data, which cant accomplish the simulation validation for airplanes longitudinal aerodynamic model.

6. Conclusions
(1) For the high feedback gain augmentation of FBW passenger airliner, the method of type selection of longitudinal excitation signal is advanced. Through the spectral analysis of signal before and after change, the frequency sweep signal is adopted to be the excitation signal. (2) Through the frequency response analysis of longitudinal motion equations, the design principle of frequency sweep is given as follows: the low frequency ending low = p, the high frequency ending high = sp ~3sp. Simultaneously, the result of simulation and identification validates the influence on identification result -- signal frequency range, amplitude, duration, the sequence of high and low frequency and time-length of flight data. (3) According to the request of objective test in CCAR60, the validation of longitudinal aerodynamic parameter identification for FBW passenger airliner is given.

References
1. Zhang Hongyuan. The application and consideration of system identification in aviation field. 2007 Academic annual meeting of Chinese society of aeronautics and astronautics. 2007. 2. Wang Shugui. The development of system identification and parameter identification of sailing body. Journal of Kunming Institute of Technology 1995; 20(6): 8-13. 3. Zhu Xiangdong, Cui Pingyuan, Wu Yaohua. Muti-step signal design for aircraft parameter identification. Flight Dynamics 1993; 11(2): 57-63. 4. Military training materials editorial committee of Chinese PLA general equipment department. Aircraft sys-tem identification. 1st, ed. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2003. 5. Wang Qing, Wu Kaiyuan, Zhang Tianjiao, Kong Yinan, Qian Weiqi. Aerodynamic Modeling and Parameter Es-timation from QAR Data of an Airplane Approaching a High-altitude Airport. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2012, 25(3): 361-371. 6. Wang Qing. A practical method of aerodynamic parameter identification for unstable airplane. Flight Dyanmics 2001,19(1): 50-54. 7. Wang Guidong, Cui Erjie, Liu Ziqiang. Closed loop identification of aerodynamic parameter using two- step method. Flight Dynamics 2010, 28(2): 16-19. 8. Wang Qing, Qian Weiqi, He Kaifeng. Aerodynamic parameter identification and optimal input design for missile. Journal of Astronautics 2008; 29(3): 789-798. 9. Ravindra V. Jategaonkar. Flight Vehicle System Identification: A Time Domain Methodology. 1st ed. Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, 2006. 10. Zhou Kun. Flying qualities assessment for certification of fly-by-wire passenger airliners with relaxed-static-stability design. PhD thesis, Beihang University, 2012. 11. Xu Dongsong. Research on airworthiness certification method of large civil passenger airliners. PhD thesis, Beihang University, 2012. 12. Zhou Kun, Wang Lixin, Tan Xiangsheng. Handling qualities assessment of short period mode for fly-by-wire passenger airliner with relaxed static stability design. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica 2012; 33(10): 1606-1615. 13. Cai Jinshi. Airdraft system identification. 1st, de. Beijing: Astronautic Press, 1994. 14. Fang Zhenping, Chen Wanchun, Zhang Shuguang. Aircraft flight dynamics. 1st ed. Beijing: Beihang University Press, 2005. 15. Gao Jinyuan, Li Luyu, Feng Yachang. Aircraft flying quality. 1st ed. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2003. 16. Detlef Rohlf, Oliver Brieger, Thomas Grohs. X-31 VECTOR system identification approach and

results. AIAA-2004-4830, 2004. 17. Vladislav Klein, Patrick C, Murphy. Aerodynamic parameters of high performance aircraft estimated from wind tunnel and flight test data. NASA-1998-AGARD-VK, 1998. 18. Mary F. Shafer. Flight investigation of various control inputs intended for parameter estimation. NASA-1984-2073, 1998. 19. Wu Wei, Chen Renliang. Identification Method for Helicopter Fully Coupled Flight Dynamics Model in Hover Condition. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2011, 32(2): 201-210. 20. Zhang Tiesheng, Hu Linju, Wu Caibao, Ma Baocheng. Aircraft flight test manual: aircraft flight test and data acquisition. 1st, ed. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 1998. 21. Eugene A. Morellli. Flight test validation of optimal input design and comparison to conventional inputs.. AIAA-1997-3711, 1997. 22. Claude Fratter, Robert F. Stengel. Identification of aerodynamic coefficients using flight testing data. AIAA-1983-2099, 1983.

WU Zhao received the B.S. and M.S. degrees from Beihang University in 2008 and 2010 respectively, and is now a Ph.D. candidate. His main research interests are aircraft flight dynamics and aerodynamic parameter identification. E-mail: changfengpolang1314@126.com WANG Lixin is a professor in Beihang University. His main research interests lie in aircraft design, flight dynamics and flight control. E-mail: bhu_wlx@tom.com