JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS

Vol. 42, No. 10, October 2019

Design and Flight Evaluation of Primary Control System

for Learjet-25B Aircraft

Eugene Lavretsky∗
The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, California 92647
DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328
In this paper, a multi-input/multi-output servomechanism primary flight controller is presented. Also discussed are
flight data related to the system performance and pilot assessments of handling qualities. The data were collected
during flight-test experiments (March 2018) on the Calspan Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Learjet-25B
aircraft. Aircraft body angular rates and linear accelerations are used to enable decoupled command tracking in
pitch, roll, and yaw axes. Angle of attack and angle of sideslip measurements are not required for the system to
operate. The developed primary flight controller translates pilot controls into the corresponding pitch, roll, and yaw
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328

commands for the aircraft to track. The system consists of a gain-scheduled robust linear baseline augmented with a
direct adaptive model reference output feedback. The baseline is designed via the Observer-Based Loop Transfer
Recovery method. The adaptive component incorporates the closed-loop reference model, whereby a state observer
from the baseline Observer-Based Loop Transfer Recovery system also acts as the reference model for the adaptive
augmentation. In March 2018, the Observer-Based Loop Transfer Recovery controller was successfully flight verified
on the Calspan Learjet-25B aircraft, at the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Flight-test results are discussed, and a brief summary is given at the end.

I. Introduction tracking performance efficacy do not depend on parameter

R ECENT developments in robust and adaptive (R&A) control
have enabled rapid development of flight critical systems for
autonomous and piloted aerial platforms, with the added benefit of
increased robustness to off-nominal aerodynamic, propulsive, and
structural characteristics [1]. Examples of flight critical systems
include software-enabled stability and control augmentation logic,
command tracking controllers, and other autopilots. Flight critical
systems are designed to maintain stable flight, provide adequate
control responses due to pilot inputs, enforce desired handling and
ride qualities, and steer aircraft along designated trajectories. Among
those, a dynamic output feedback R&A flight control technology [2],
capable of achieving predictable and quantifiable performance for
flight vehicles that often operate in an uncertain environment with
potentially significant changes in the vehicle dynamics, has emerged.
This particular control design is called the Observer-Based Loop
Transfer Recovery (OBLTR). The system is capable of handling
flight dynamics uncertainties that may arise due to a partial loss of
control, structural deformations, environmental disturbances, time
delays, and gain variations in control and sensor channels. OBLTR is
an output feedback controller with optional command-feedforward
connections. Its operation relies only on the vehicle sensor
measurements. The control architecture integrates a baseline and
adaptive components into a real-time online dynamic R&A
controller. The overall design is based on formal methods from
controls and dynamics. The baseline architecture consists of an
observer-based robust controller. An optimal linear quadratic
regulator (LQR) framework [3,4] is used to calculate baseline
feedback gains. The Luenberger full-state dynamic observer [5] is
designed to 1) estimate system state components and 2) create a
reference model for adaptive control to follow. The adaptive
augmentation is designed via the closed-loop reference model
(CRM) concept [6–9]. The complete system formulation and its
Presented as Paper 2019-1081 at the AIAA SciTech Forum, AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, San Diego, CA, 7–
11 January 2019; received 15 January 2019; revision received 25 March 2019;
accepted for publication 30 March 2019; published online 9 May 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by The Boeing Company. Published by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests
for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.
copyright.com; employ the eISSN 1533-3884 to initiate your request. See also
AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp.
*Senior Technical Fellow, The Boeing Research & Technology; eugene.
lavretsky@boeing.com. Fellow AIAA.
2157
identification. This property constitutes one of the key benefits of
OBLTR. The controller relies on its state observer component to
estimate the system modes without requiring precise knowledge of
the aircraft aerodynamic parameters, such as stability and control
derivatives. Another key property is the ability to design a flight
critical system based on a predefined selection of available aircraft
sensors [10]. For example, a primary flight controller can be
constructed without the use of an angle of attack (AOA) and angle of
sideslip (AOS). Such a system is presented in this paper. In March
2018, the OBLTR controller was implemented and flown on Calspan
Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator (VSS) Learjet-25B (LJ-25B)
aircraft at the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School (TPS), Edwards Air
Force Base, California. The OBLTR system performance and
robustness were also flight verified on a variety of autonomous aerial
platforms by The Boeing Company.
Theoretical background and application-driven motivations for the
OBLTR design originate from many textbooks on robust and
adaptive control such as [1,4,11–13] as well as from recently
developed design extensions with aerospace applications published
in [2,7–9,14,15]. The flight control step-by-step design and analysis
procedures from [16] had a particularly strong influence on
discovering the OBLTR architecture. In fact, the OBLTR baseline
control design philosophy for aircraft pitch, roll, and yaw dynamics
was largely motivated by the work reported in [16].
Essentially, the OBLTR controller combines R&A control
designs, such as LQR, Linear Quadratic Gaussian/Loop Transfer
Recovery (LQG/LTR), and adaptive control, into a single dynamic
output feedback architecture. Key components include the squaring-
up method [17] and the observer-based adaptive output feedback
design modification [1,2]. Adding feedforward connections to
OBLTR is optional. In a piloted aircraft such as LJ-25B, adding
feedforward commands is beneficial to shape and improve the
closed-loop system response without degrading stability margins.
The end goal is to provide an automated design procedure for
achieving augmented (no pilot in the loop) closed-loop stability,
robustness, and performance for Multi-Input-Multi-Output (MIMO)
systems operating in large domains and within an uncertain
environment. The application focus is on flight critical systems for
autonomous and piloted aerial platforms. This paper presents an
attempt to address and solve these challenging problems.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Open-loop dynamics
are defined in Sec. III, followed by the design outline of a state
feedback optimal LQR with proportional and integral feedback
(Sec. IV). The OBLTR state observer and the associated baseline
 2158
robust control definitions are introduced in Sec. V. Signals with hats
represent estimated values of their respective components. These
quantities are computed by the pitch and the roll/yaw state observers,
the generic definitions of which are also presented in this section.
OBLTR adaptive output feedback augmentation is defined in Sec. VI.
Section VII gives an overview of OBLTR flight evaluations, related
test data, and pilot comments. The paper ends with a brief summary in
Sec. VIII.
II. Flight Control of Aerial Systems via OBLTR Design
Driven by a pilot or a guidance logic, the OBLTR flight controller
has the ability to maintain (when possible) and to enforce a graceful
degradation of the desired baseline closed-loop performance, while
operating in the presence of significant uncertainties that may exist in
aerodynamics, propulsion, configuration, and environmental
disturbances. Like other robust controllers, the proposed design
assumes controllability and observability of the system under
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328
uncertainties. Also, it is assumed that the system control actuator
position and rate limits are adequate to mitigate “unknown
unknowns.” OBLTR is designed to use available sensor
measurements only. The system goal is to achieve and maintain
predictable and stable operation of an aerial vehicle throughout the
flight envelope.
The OBLTR controller is deterministic. It prescribes stable,
predictable, and repeatable online adjustments of its baseline and
adaptive control parameters. By combining a robust baseline inner-
loop controller with a direct model reference adaptive augmentation,
the resulting system receives shared benefits of each component.
While the baseline controller provides the required target
performance with robustness and stability properties under nominal
conditions, the adaptive augmentation allows the system to retain the
desired closed-loop performance in the presence of aerodynamic,
propulsive, environmental, and other uncertainties that may result in
adverse conditions encountered during flight.
Figure 1 shows a generic OBLTR-based control block diagram.
There are four essential elements in the system: 1) the robust baseline
linear controller, 2) the state observer/closed-loop reference model,
3) the direct adaptive augmentation, and 4) the piloted interface or
guidance commands.
Feedforward connections from the pilot/guidance interface
(shown in green) are optional and can be added to the total control
signal in order to shape the system closed-loop augmented command
responses. As a servomechanism, the OBLTR controller is designed
to make the system regulated outputs follow external commands
generated by an operator interface or a guidance logic, for piloted or
autonomous vehicles, respectively. The baseline control component
is constructed assuming nominal plant dynamics. If in operation the
system measurements significantly differ from their estimated
values, the adaptive augmentation provides an additive correction
signal to the baseline control. The goal is to maintain the desired
Estimation Error
Observer
Ref Model
Commands
Estimated State Adaptive
Pilot or Guidance Baseline
Guidance
Interface
Control
Fig. 1 OBLTR control block diagram (Ref., Reference).
LAVRETSKY
closed-loop system response in the presence of modeling errors,
control deficiencies, and environmental uncertainties. These
unknowns may cause significant changes in aircraft aerodynamics,
propulsion, and structures.
It is expected that in a symmetric aircraft configuration in level
flight conditions coupling between the vehicle pitch and roll/yaw
dynamics is negligible. For example, the moderate sweep angle on
the LJ-25B aircraft produces a minor degree of coupling between
longitudinal and lateral/directional dynamics. Stability and
performance robustness due to these unaccounted for in the control
design dynamics must be analyzed and then tested in Monte Carlo–
based simulations. Assuming decoupled longitudinal and lateral/
directional modes, the baseline pitch and roll/yaw controllers could
be designed separately. Figure 2 shows the pitch axis controller
designed to regulate a linear combination of the aircraft vertical
acceleration N z (gravity) and the body angular pitch rate qb
(radians∕second). The resulting quantity is called the Cstar,
C
 N z  12.4qb ; g (1)
Reference [18] presents rationale and details on the criterion
formulation. It is shown that regulating a linear combination of the
aircraft incremental vertical acceleration and the pitch rate in the form
of Eq. (1) directly correlates and significantly improves handling
properties of the corresponding closed-loop responses due to piloted
inputs. To that end, the pitch rate scaling factor is selected based on
the desired crossover airspeed region, to emphasize either the vehicle
vertical acceleration or the pitch rate response.
Similarly, the OBLTR baseline roll/yaw controller (Fig. 3) is
designed to regulate the aircraft stability axis roll rate ps
(radians∕second),
ps  pb cos α^  rb sin α^ (2)
and the body lateral acceleration Ay (feet∕second2 ), where pb , rb ,
and α^ denote the aircraft body roll rate (radians∕second), body yaw
rate (radians∕second), and the estimated angle of attack (radians),
correspondingly.
As shown in Figs 2 and 3, the aircraft true AOA and AOS signals
are not fed back as output measurements. OBLTR relies only on their
estimated values. Furthermore, both pitch and roll/yaw OBLTR
controllers have a common generic architecture that incorporates a
state observer with proportional and integral feedback connections.
Also of note, the signals fed into the state observer as true
measurements include integrated tracking errors, instead of the
original regulated output. It is straightforward to show that replacing
a measurement with its integrated value preserves the system
observability. From a practical perspective, using integrated linear
accelerations instead of the original signals significantly reduces
OBLTR Block Diagram
Predicted Measurements
Output
Estimation Error
Measurements
Control
Control
Vehicle
Measurements
 LAVRETSKY 2159

Pitch ⎛ eˆC∗ I ⎞
Dynamic ⎜ ⎟ D p reg
αˆ ⎟
Compensator ⎜⎜ Short-Period Dynamics
qˆ ⎟
δe
(s I ) (α , qb ) C
−1
⎝ ⎠ −K
( s I n×n − Aobs )
−1 b
− Ap
*
Ccmd Bcmd lqr
n p ×np Bp p reg C∗

(e )
T q
Lv C∗ I
q

1 eC ∗ I

s C ∗ = N z + 12.4 qb , ( g )

Fig. 2 OBLTR baseline pitch controller.

Roll / Yaw ⎛ eˆ ps I ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ eˆAy I ⎟
Dynamic ⎜ ˆ ⎟ D p reg
Compensator
⎜ β ⎟
⎜ pˆ ⎟
⎛ δ ail ⎞ Roll/Yaw Dynamics
⎜ b ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ δ rud ⎠
(s I )
⎛ ps cmd ⎞ ⎜ rˆ ⎟ −1 xp ⎛ ps ⎞
( s I n×n − Aobs )
−1
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328

⎝ b ⎠
⎜ ⎟ Bcmd − K lqr − Ap Bp C p reg ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ay cmd ⎠ n p ×n p
⎝ Ay ⎠
⎛ pb ⎞
⎜ ⎟
(e ) ⎝ rb ⎠
T
Lv ps I eAy I pb rb
1 e ps I
s eAy I

15
Fig. 3 OBLTR baseline roll/yaw controller.

system sensitivity to measurement noise that is often present in
accelerometers.
All signals required for OBLTR design, analysis, and
implementation are defined in Table 1. For presentation clarity, the
longitudinal signals are listed first, followed by the lateral-directional
parameters.
The OBLTR baseline system, with the pitch and the roll/yaw
controllers combined, forms a square 3 × 3 servomechanism
problem for tracking three commands  C
cmd pscmd Aycmd  using
three control inputs: aileron, elevator, and rudder  δe δa δr ,
respectively. For a conventional piloted aircraft such as LJ-25B, the
three commands would be connected to and generated by the pilot
interface: pitch/roll stick and rudder pedals. As such, the OBLTR
controller becomes a primary control augmentation system designed
to interpret, augment, and modify pilot inputs in order to track
respective commands and at the same time to maintain the desired
closed-loop system stability and performance characteristics.
Other parameters shown in the OBLTR baseline control block
diagrams (Figs. 2 and 3) notionally describe the aircraft open-loop
system dynamics, control gains, and the system state observer
related data.
III. Open-Loop System
Modeling for control begins with the formulation of a finite set of
linear time-invariant plants in the classical state-space form
x_p  Ap xp  Bp u; ymeas  Cpmeas xp  Dpmeas u;
yreg  Cpreg xp  Dpreg u (3)
whereby each linear system is verified to be controllable and
observable (that is minimal), while the corresponding dynamics
approximate the evolution of the true process (the aircraft dynamics)
around its selected equilibrium (trim). In Eq. (3), xp ∈ Rnp denotes
the np - dimensional state, u ∈ Rm is the m-dimensional vector of
controls, ymeas ∈ Rnymeas combines the system output measurements,
and yreg ∈ Rnyreg represents the regulated output. These output signals

Table 1 Aircraft signals for OBLTR design, analysis, and implementation

Engineering name Symbol Positive sign convention
Vertical acceleration, g Nz Up
Angle of attack estimate, rad α^ Nose up
Body pitch rate, rad∕s qb Nose up
Cstar, g C
C
 N z  12.4qb
Cstar command, g C
cmd Up
Integrated Cstar tracking error, ft∕s eC
I eC
I  C
− C
cmd ∕s
Elevator deflection, rad δe Trailing edge down
Lateral acceleration, ft∕s2 Ay Out to right wing
Lateral acceleration command, ft∕s2 Aycmd Out to right wing
Integrated lateral acceleration tracking error, ft∕s eAy I eAy I  Ay − Aycmd ∕s
Sideslip angle estimate, rad β^ Out to right wing
Body roll rate, rad∕s pb Right wing down
Body yaw rate, rad∕s rb Nose right
Stability axis roll rate, rad∕s ps ps  pb cos α^  rb sin α^
Stability axis roll rate command, rad∕s pscmd Right wing down
Integrated stability roll rate tracking error, rad eps I eps I  ps − pscmd ∕s
Aileron deflection, rad δa Left (right) trailing edge down (up)
Rudder deflection, rad δr Trailing edge right
 2160 LAVRETSKY
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328

Fig. 4 Learjet-25 flight envelope with control design and flight evaluation points.

are recorded online by a suit of physical devices, called the sensors

DDppreg
[10]. The trim conditions and their corresponding open-loop linear
xp
models selected for this study were defined to cover the LJ-25B KI
(s I )
u −1
ycmd n p ×n p − Ap Bp CCppreg yreg
flight-testing envelope of interest as shown on Fig. 4 in Sec. VII, in s
which the flight experiment details are presented. KP
The system open-loop dynamics (3) are assumed to be
controllable. It is required that the square m × m transfer function Fig. 5 Optimal state feedback LQR PI controller.
matrix,

Preg s  Cpreg sI np ×np − Ap −1 Bp  Dpreg (4) IV. State Feedback Linear Quadratic Regulator
OBLTR design starts with the construction of an optimal state
feedback LQR regulator for the extended system dynamics (7). The
from the control input u to the regulated output yreg , has no LQR state feedback solution is formulated as a conventional
transmission zeros at the origin. These two assumptions guarantee proportional integral (PI) servocontroller,
controllability of the extended open-loop system,
yreg − ycmd 
u  −K lqr x  −KI eyI − K xp xp  −KI − K xp
e_yI  yreg − ycmd x_ p  Ap xp  Bp u (5) s
ycmd − yreg 
xp  K I − K xp xp (8)
with the integrated tracking error eyI  yreg − ycmd ∕s embedded s
into the system dynamics to create a type-1 controller. Rewriting
Eq. (5) in matrix form gives The matrix of optimal feedback gains,

! ! ! ! ! K lqr  R−1 BT P (9)

e_ yI 0m×m Cpreg eyI Dpreg −I m×m
  u ycmd
x_ p 0np ×m Ap xp Bp 0np ×m is defined based on the control weight positive-definite symmetric
|{z} |{z} |{z} |{z} |{z} matrix R and on the unique symmetric positive-definite solution P of
x_ A x B Bcmd
! the algebraic Riccati equation (ARE),
eyI
yreg   0m×m Cpreg   Dpreg u (6) PA  AT P  Q − PBR−1 BT P  0
|{z} xp |{z} (10)
Creg |{z} Dreg
x with the appropriately selected semidefinite symmetric state weight
matrix Q. The resulting LQR PI optimal state feedback control block
or equivalently diagram is shown in Fig. 5.
Its robustness properties are well known [3]. Specifically, if the
control weighting matrix R is selected to be diagonal with identical
x_  Ax  Bu  Bcmd ycmd yreg  Creg x  Dreg u (7)
elements, then the MIMO loop gain of the system at the input break
point yields an infinite gain margin and at least 60 deg of phase
It can be shown that if the matrix pair Ap ; Bp  is controllable and margin in each of the control channels. This method was applied to
the transfer function (4) has no transmission zeros at the origin then design pitch and roll/yaw state feedback controllers for the four
the extended open-loop dynamics (7) are also controllable. The linearized LJ-25B aircraft dynamics shown in Fig. 4. The trimmed
physical meaning of the required absence of a zero at the origin for the flight conditions were selected to sufficiently cover the LJ-25B flight-
original open-loop regulated dynamics (4) is the ability to embed an testing envelope.
integrator and to asymptotically track constant commands and reject In the next section, the OBLTR dynamic output feedback baseline
constant disturbances with zero errors [3]. controller is described. Specifically, the LQR PI state feedback
 LAVRETSKY 2161

solution (8) is combined with a dynamic state observer in such a way p − inputs
0 ⇓
1
that the closed-loop tracking performance remains optimal while at
z}|{
the same time the LQR state feedback stability margins are recovered p − outputs ⇒ @ A B B2 A ∈ Rnp×np
at the plant input, and the overall control architecture takes the form Cmeas 0p×p
of a dynamic output feedback controller operating on available
sensor measurements only.
has its transmission zeros in the open left half complex plane C− . The
squaring-up design entails placing p − m transmission zeros at the
desired locations in C− . Constructive and numerically efficient
V. OBLTR Baseline Control algorithms for squaring up are developed in [17]. Solutions are not
The OBLTR baseline design starts with a redefinition of the system unique. A set of sufficient conditions for a solution to exist is given as
measurements. Basically, any output signal that has a direct follows.
feedforward control connection (a nonzero D matrix component) is Assumption 1:
replaced by its integrated value. Such an operation does not destroy 1. A; Cmeas  is observable.
the observability of the original system pair Ap ; Cp . For LJ-25B, 2. The system is tall p > m, and rankCmeas B  m.
there are two regulated outputs with nonzero D matrices: C
(1) and 3. The tall system (12) has no finite transmission zeros in the closed
the aircraft lateral acceleration Ay . Treated as measurements for the right half complex plane.
observer, both signals are replaced with their integrated tracking The first condition (observability) is basic. The second assumption
errors, eC
I and eAy I , as defined in Table 1, without a loss of the (tallness) is often true in all flight control applications, and the third
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328

system observability. assumption is almost always satisfied for all tall systems. In essence,
Generalizing this concept, the system measurements are written as the three assumed relations are not restrictive going forward.
It can be verified that the transfer function from the elevator δe to
    
I m×m 0m×np eyI 0m×m the vertical acceleration N z has an unstable zero. However, one can
ymeas   u  Cmeas x (11) show that the corresponding tall system driven by the elevator and
0p×m Cpmeas xp Dpmeas
|{z} |{z} |{z} having two outputs represented by the vertical acceleration and the
Cmeas x Dmeas 0p×m
pitch rate satisfies the third assumption. That is, the tall system has no
finite unstable transmission zeros.
whereby the first m output components represent the system Under these three assumptions, the squaring-up design for the
integrated tracking errors eyI , and the last p − m components are extended open-loop dynamics (12) is accomplished by adding
the original system measurements without direct feedforward control pseudocontrol inputs B2 ∈ Rp−m to compose an extended B matrix
connections. One can prove the following fact: if the original system and to place (p − m) transmission zeros at the desired locations in the
matrix pair Ap ; Cp  is observable, then the extended system pair left-half open complex plane C− .
A; Cmeas  remains observable.
In Eq. (11), it is explicitly assumed that the extended open-loop B  B; B2 
dynamics are “tall,”    
 ≠ 0 ∧ det sI − A
⇒ detCmeas B
B
 0 ⇒ s ∈ C−
x_  Ax  Bu  Bcmd ycmd ymeas  Cmeas x  Dmeas u (12) Cmeas 0
that is, there are more measurements than control inputs u ∈ Rm . For (13)
flight control applications, the tall assumption is not restrictive.
For LJ-25B pitch axis OBLTR control design, there are two Next, the full-state Luenberger observer for Eq. (12) is formulated
measurements p  2 and one control input m  1: in its standard form [1,3,6]:
ymeas   eC
I qb T , u  δe . For the roll/yaw controller, four
measurements p  4 and two control inputs m  2 are used: x_^  Ax^  Bu  Bcmd ycmd  Lv ymeas − y^ meas  (14)
ymeas   eφI eAy I pb rb T , u   δa δr .
The next concept is pivotal for OBLTR. It is called the squaring-up The observer dynamics are driven by the control input u, the
design. The squaring-up problem for a nonsquare linear MIMO command ycmd , the estimated measurement
system, with m inputs and m < p outputs,
y^ meas  Cmeas x^ (15)
m − inputs
0 1
⇓ and the innovation term ymeas − y^ meas  feedback, with the parameter-
z}|{
p − outputs ⇒ @ A B A ∈ Rnp×nm dependent Luenberger gain,
Cmeas Dmeas
Lv  Pv CTmeas R−1
v (16)
can be stated as follows [17]: given the state matrix A ∈ the Rn×n ,
input matrix B ∈ Rn×m , and the output matrices Cmeas ∈ Rp×n , In Eq. (16), Pv is the unique positive-definite symmetric
Dmeas ∈ Rp×m , with n > m; p > m, determine pseudoinput parameter-dependent solution of the ARE,
matrices B2 ∈ Rn×p−m and D2 ∈ Rp×p−m , such that the resulting
square system with p inputs and p outputs, Pv AT  APv  Qv − Pv CTmeas R−1
v Cmeas Pv  0 (17)

0 p − inputs 1 with the v-dependent weight matrices,

⇓
z}|{  
p − outputs ⇒ @ A B B2 A ∈ Rnp×np v  1  T v
Qv  Q0  BB ; Rv  R (18)
Cmeas Dmeas D2 v v1 0

has its transmission zeros in the open left half complex plane, C− .
Systems considered in this paper have no feedforward connections
(11), that is, Dmeas  0p×m . So, the squaring-up problem is reduced
to finding a pseudo-input matrix B2 ∈ Rn×p−m , such that the p ×
p square system,
Note that Eq. (17) is similar to the steady-state ARE in Kalman
filtering [3,4]. The parameterization of the matrix weights (18) comes
from [1,2]. It differs significantly from the LQG/LTR design
[4,19,20], in which only the system-process-related weights Rv are
increased in order to recover stability margins. Also, note that the
 2162 LAVRETSKY

u out
u in
Dp reg
Dynamic Compensator Plant

(s I )
x̂ −1 xp
( s I n×n − Aobs )
−1
ycmd Bcmd −K
np ×np − Ap Bp C p reg yreg

⎛ ey I ⎞ y p meas
Lv ⎜ ⎟ C p meas
⎝ y p meas ⎠
1 ey I
s

Fig. 6 OBLTR baseline linear dynamic output feedback controller.

squaring-up solution B in Eq. (18) is employed to form the ARE
weight matrix Qv .
The OBLTR baseline control uses the estimated system state
vector x^ from the observer (14) in a feedback loop,
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328
control position and rate limits are not explicitly taken into
consideration. Their effects are tested in simulations.
The original design concept was referred to as the observer-based
adaptive control [2]. Subsequently, in [6,7], stability proofs were

strengthened from the uniform ultimate boundedness (UUB) [21] to

u  −Klqr x^ (19) global asymptotic stability of the corresponding tracking error
dynamics. Also, the method was renamed to CRM, with the main
Substituting Eqs. (15) and (19) into the observer dynamics (14) intent being to emphasize a direct link between the model reference
gives the latter in the closed-loop form: concept in adaptive control [13,22] and the closed-loop Luenberger
observers [5].
x_^  A − BK lqr − Lv Cmeas  x^ Bcmd ycmd  Lv ymeas (20) Next, an outline of the CRM-based adaptive output feedback
|{z} control design and analysis is presented. Substituting Eq. (18) into
Aobs
Eq. (17) gives the ARE in the form
Relations (19) and (20) define the OBLTR robust baseline output  
1
feedback dynamic controller, computed based on the command ycmd Pv AT  APv − 1  Pv CTmeas R−1
0 Cmeas Pv  Q0
and the measurements ymeas , as shown in Fig. 6. v
 
In addition to guaranteed closed-loop stability and the desired 1
command tracking performance, the OBLTR servomechanism also  1  B T B  0 (23)
v
recovers optimal stability margins of the state feedback LQR PI, at
the control input break point (Fig. 4). That is, as v → 0, the system or, equivalently,
loop gain,

uout  −Lu suin (21) vPv AT  APv  Q0   v  1B T B − Pv CTmeas R−1

0 Cmeas Pv   0
(24)
asymptotically approaches the optimal state feedback LQR PI loop
gain, pointwise in s, It can be argued that as v → 0 the ARE solution Pv permits the
asymptotic expansion,
Lu s → K lqr sI n×n − A−1 B  Lulqr s (22)
v→0 Pv  P0  Ov (25)
This is the LTR property of the OBLTR controller. It is similar to uniformly in v, and a symmetric positive definite matrix P0 exists,
the concept of LQG/LTR [19,20]. The selection of v in the design of
the observer gain (16) plays a crucial role. This is the tuning knob to T 
recover optimal margins and to achieve an extra −20 dB∕decade P0 CTmeas R−1
0 Cmeas P0  B B (26)
loop gain attenuation at higher frequencies. To do that, values of v
need to be selected sufficiently small to recover stability margins, but In addition, the relations
not too small in order to retain attenuation properties of the output −1∕2
feedback outside of the control bandwidth. When properly designed, P−1 −1 −1  T
v  P0  Ov; Pv B  Cmeas R0 W  Ov (27)
|{z}
the OBLTR not only recovers stability margins of the optimal LQR P−1 B
0
state feedback, but it also provides extra attenuation of high-
frequency dynamics. These built-in inherent stability robustness
as v → 0, take place, In Eq. (27), W  UVT is unitary. The two
characteristics of the OBLTR allow for removal of structural mode
filters in flight control applications. Such was the case for the LJ-25B unitary matrices U and V are defined by the singular value
OBLTR design and other recently flown aircraft. decomposition B T CT R−1∕2 0
 UΣV, with the diagonal matrix
Σ that has the singular values of  B T CT R−1∕2
0
 on its diagonal.
Note that the unitary matrix W is computable. Moreover, let
VI. Direct Adaptive Model Reference Output Feedback S   I m×m 0p−m×m . Then,
Augmentation −1∕2
A direct adaptive model reference output feedback adaptation P−1 T
v B  Cmeas R0 WST  Ov (28)
logic can be seamlessly added to the OBLTR linear baseline
controller (14–19). The adaptive design starts with the state observer The asymptotics (28) are pivotal for deriving output feedback
dynamics (14). In terms of adaptive control, the observer can be adaptive laws and proving Lyapunov stability of the OBLTR adaptive
interpreted as a CRM for adaptive control [2,6,7,9]. In other words, control component for uncertain dynamical systems with matched
the adaptive augmentation is constructed to track the desired CRM uncertainties,
dynamics in the presence of matched possibly state-dependent
uncertainties and control effectiveness deficiencies. In this design, x_  Ax  BΛu  ΘT Φx  Bcmd ycmd (29)
 LAVRETSKY 2163

This is the extended open-loop nominal system (7) with added ^ T Φ

e_ x  A − Lv Cex  BΛΘ  T Φ
 −Θ 
parametric uncertainties, such as a constant diagonal positive definite |{z}
matrix Λ ∈ Rm×m and vector function fx  ΘT Φx ∈ Rm . The Av

former represents an unknown change in control effectiveness, while 0 1

the latter characterizes a set of matched unknown state-dependent  Av ex  BΛ@Θ  TΦ
^ − Θ  T Φ
 Θ  − Φ A
unknowns that may exist in the system dynamics due to modeling |{z} |{z}
errors and environmental effects. The control input is defined as a ΔΘ
 ΔΦ


sum of the baseline linear feedback component (19) and an adaptive  T Φ

 Av ex  BΛΔΘ ^ ubl   Θ
 x;  T ΔΦ
 (38)
augmentation,
^ are formulated via a Lyapunov function
Stable adaptive laws for Θ
u  −K lqr x^  uad  ubl  uad (30) candidate in the form
|{z}
ubl
Vex ; ΔΘ  T Γ−1 ΔΘ
  eTx P−1 ex  traceΛΔΘ  (39)
0 Θ
Rewriting the system dynamics (29),
with P−1
0 (27) and a positive definite symmetric matrix ΓΘ , which in
0 1 turn represents adaptation rates. Projection-based adaptive laws [23]
are selected via inverse Lyapunov design [1,13,22],
B C
B C
B C
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328

B C _^
B C Θ ^ Γ Φ
  ProjΘ; ^ ubl ymeas − y^ meas T R−1∕2
  x; WST  (40)
x_  Ax  Bubl  BΛB uad  ΘT Φx  I m×m − Λ−1 ubl C Θ 0
B |{z} C
B   C In [6,7], it is formally proven that for a sufficiently small positive v
B ubl C
@ I m×m − Λ−1  ΘT  Θ  bl ;xA
 T Φu
the time derivative of Vex ; ΔΘ,
 along the estimation error dynamics
|{z} Φx
ΘT |{z} (38), becomes negative semidefinite, which establishes Lyapunov
Φu

bl ;x stability of the coupled system (38), (40) equilibrium. Also asserted is
 Bcmd ycmd (31) the UUB property for all internal signals. Asymptotic stability of the
estimation error follows from application of the Barbalat lemma [21].
Dynamics of the observer tracking error,
gives
e  x^ − xref (41)
 T Φu
x_  Ax  Bubl  BΛuad  Θ  bl ; x  Bcmd ycmd (32)
are derived by subtracting Eq. (36) from Eq. (35):
Based on Eq. (32), the state observer (14) would have to be
redefined: e_  Aref e − Lv Cex (42)

Since ex t→t→∞ 0 and Aref is Hurwitz, then the observer tracking

x_^  Ax^  Bu  Bcmd ycmd  Lv ymeas − y^ meas 
error asymptotically tends to zero, et→t→∞ 0. Finally,
^ ad  Θ
 BΛu ^ T Φu
 bl ; x
^ (33)  
 
 

kxt − xref tk xt
^ − xt − xt ^ − xref t
However, if the adaptive augmentation is selected as |
 {z
 } |{z} 
 
ex t et
^ T Φu
uad  −Θ  bl ; x
^ (34) ≤ kex tk  ketk → 0 (43)
t→∞

then the state observer (33) becomes identical to the original one (14). and consequently, the state xt of the original system (29) tracks the
In addition, substituting the baseline control component from state xref t of the open-loop reference model (36). The reference
Eq. (30), the state observer takes the form of a CRM: model tracking performance of the OBLTR (Baseline  Adaptive)
output feedback controller (30), (34), (40) is global and asymptotic.
x_^  A − BKlqr  x^ Bcmd ycmd  Lv ymeas − y^ meas  (35) As noted earlier, the derivation of the adaptive laws (40) is largely
|{z} predicated on the ARE asymptotics (27). The latter builds a bridge
Aref between achieving loop transfer recovery properties of robust control
and the design of an adaptive output feedback for model reference
^
In Eq. (34), Θt denotes a time-varying matrix of the adaptive control. In that context, the state observer also acts as the CRM for
parameters, and Φu  bl ; x ^ T is the regressor vector.
^   uTbl ΦT x adaptive control. In [15], it is shown that if rates of adaptation are
It depends on the system estimated state x^ and on the OBLTR baseline selected as ΓΘ  OkLv k the transient performance in CRM-based
control ubl  −Klqr x. ^ Components of the regressor vector are adaptive control is superior to that of Model Reference Adaptive
selected to enable approximation of matched uncertainties in the Control systems with open-loop reference models. Reduced
system dynamics. transients and global asymptotic tracking performance are the two
Without the measurement innovation feedback term main benefits of the CRM-based design.
Lv ymeas − y^ meas , the CRM dynamics (35) become identical to the
standard (also known as open-loop) reference model in model
reference adaptive control [13,22], VII. OBLTR Controller Design and Evaluations on
Calspan LJ-25B Aircraft
x_ ref  Aref xref  Bcmd ycmd (36)
Open-loop linear data for OBLTR control design were calculated
using the Calspan LJ-25B high-fidelity flight simulation
For the state estimation error, environment [24]. The aircraft flight operational envelope is shown
in Fig. 4.
ex  x^ − x (37) The OBLTR baseline and adaptive control designs were performed
at the four dynamic pressure values, shown as red dashed lines in the
the corresponding estimation error dynamics can be derived [1,2]: figure. For real-time operation, control parameters were gain
 2164 LAVRETSKY
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328

Fig. 7 LJ-25B pitch step-input closed-loop responses with OBLTR Fig. 9 LJ-25B SISO elevator loop gains with the OBLTR baseline
baseline controller and feedforward gains. controller and actuator dynamics.

Fig. 8 LJ-25B roll/yaw step-input closed-loop responses with OBLTR Fig. 10 LJ-25B MIMO roll/yaw loop gains with the OBLTR baseline
baseline controller and feedforward gains. controller and actuator dynamics.

scheduled based on dynamic pressure values. Flight evaluations were

conducted near two flight conditions, CR1 and CR2.
Baseline control gains (9) and the Luenberger state observer gain
(16) were calculated as described in Secs. IV and V. The
corresponding ARE weight matrices were tuned to produce unified
responses across the selected four dynamic pressure conditions.
Feedforward gains were added to shorten rise times. Figures 7 and 8
show step-input linear responses for the three regulated outputs
C
; ps ; Ay  due to their respective commanded signals
C
cmd ; pscmd ; Aycmd , with the OBLTR pitch and roll/yaw controllers
in the loop.
The corresponding elevator, aileron, and rudder commands are
found to be well within actuator position and rate limits.
Figures 9–12 show elevator, aileron, and rudder loop gains at the
system control input break points, Single-Input-Single-Output
(SISO) and MIMO variants at respective control input breakpoints,
defined in the OBLTR block diagram (Fig. 6).
For the roll/yaw controller, the MIMO data consist of minimum
and maximum singular values of the roll/yaw loop gain matrices. The
roll/yaw SISO loop gains are computed based on Eq. (21), with a Fig. 11 LJ-25B SISO aileron loop gains with the OBLTR baseline
single loop opened at a time and the other one closed. For the SISO controller without actuator dynamics.
loops, all subsystems (such as actuators and time delays) are disabled
to show baseline characteristics. Adding subsystems to the SISO loop
calculations does not significantly affect stability margins. ensures transient-free gain scheduling. The crossover frequencies
As seen from the data, each control loop has very similar crossover between the three axes are comparable, which makes the aircraft
frequencies across all four design flight conditions. This feature responses be alike in pitch, roll, and yaw. The OBLTR closed-loop
 LAVRETSKY
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328
Fig. 12 LJ-25B SISO rudder loop gains with the OBLTR baseline
controller without actuator dynamics (Mag, Magnitude).
command tracking performance is nearly decoupled in all three axes.
The decoupling property is achieved through the system integral
feedback connections. In addition, the OBLTR loop gain data imply
more than adequate stability margins for the respective SISO and
MIMO dynamics. In fact, gain margins outside of −6; 10 dB and at
least 45 deg phase margins in each axis are achieved across the
selected four design flight conditions. Stability margins at all flight
critical sensors are also evaluated and found to be adequate.
A direct adaptive output feedback augmentation component was
added to the OBLTR baseline controller via the CRM-based design
from Sec. IV. Before flight tests, the OBLTR (Baseline  Adaptive)
system was implemented and tested in a Calspan-provided high-
fidelity six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) desktop flight simulation
environment [24]. Simulation tests included closed-loop command
tracking performance under nominal and off-nominal flight
conditions. The latter included environmental disturbances, such as
gust wind, aerodynamic uncertainties, and control deficiencies.
High-fidelity 6-DOF testing confirmed OBLTR enabled closed-
loop system performance and robustness. Later on, the OBLTR
controller was also implemented and tested in the LJ-25 ground
simulator.
OBLTR flight evaluations were performed by pilots and flight-test
engineers at the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School Class 17B Team
Have PACMAN. The flight tests were conducted during the first two
weeks in March 2018. The test conditions are summarized in Table 2
and depicted in Fig. 4. The flight conditions fell within the lines of
constant dynamic pressure for which the OBLTR controller was
designed. Adjustments were made in flight to maintain dynamic
pressure of 120 lb∕ft2 or higher. Air speed was held so that dynamic
pressure did not change more than 10 lb∕ft2 during any particular
maneuver.
The flight-test program had three major objectives:
1) Demonstrate command tracking and stability robustness
capabilities of OBLTR under conditions with and without
uncertainties.
2) Evaluate OBLTR output estimation performance.
3) Assess and compare the handling qualities of the Learjet VSS
system and OBLTR controller under conditions with and without
uncertainties.
Table 2 OBLTR flight evaluations conditions
Flight condition Air speed (KIAS)
CR1 250
CR2 200
2165
Aerodynamic and control uncertainties tested in flight included
1) gain changes and time delays at control inputs (aileron, elevator,
and rudder commands), 2) statically unstable dynamics and
3) longitudinal and directional stability degradations.
A comprehensive list of all tests conducted during the flight
program can be found in [25–27]. Step inputs and frequency sweeps
were injected during tests in order to measure system performance
and estimate stability margins based on flight telemetry
measurements. Postflight data analysis revealed significantly
increased crossover frequencies in all three axes, which implied a
presence of unknown gains in the three control channels. It was
conjectured that the unanticipated gain increases were due to
structural mode filters implemented with inconsistent units (hertz vs
radians/second). Further investigation into the root cause was
recommended.
OBLTR closed-loop command tracking and stability robustness
were evaluated and quantified throughout the flight-test program, for
all sets of maneuvers under nominal and off-nominal flight
conditions. The derived metrics indicated acceptable system
performance [25–27], with predicted in-simulation small tracking
errors in all command tracking channels. During OBLTR testing at
off-nominal flight conditions and with injected uncertainties, it was
noted that tracking and stability robustness benefits came mostly
from the OBLTR baseline gain-scheduled linear controller. The
adaptive augmentation provided benign adjustments to the total
control inputs. A simulation study was conducted and showed
potential improvements with a more aggressive adaptive control
redesign, by changing rates of adaptation and projection operator
bounds. These modifications were not flight verified due to the time
criticality of the test program.
State estimation capabilities of the OBLTR system were analyzed
postflight. Specifically, estimated values for the aircraft angular rates
and aerodynamic angles (AOA and AOS) from the state observer
were compared to their respective measurements. The estimated
signals were found to adequately represent the sensed outputs.
Reported rms estimation errors for AOA and AOS were within a
degree of their respective vane measurements. Angular rates
estimation was within half a degree, which was expected since
measurements of the aircraft body angular rates were sent to the
OBLTR state estimator as input signals.
Aircraft handling qualities were evaluated with and without
uncertainties. The specific test objective was to compare the handling
qualities of the basic Learjet VSS and OBLTR controllers, with and
without uncertainties, while using pitch and roll discrete tracking task
maneuvers. The test objective was met. Overall, though the basic
Learjet VSS and OBLTR flew differently due to their respective
designs, the evaluation pilots had very similar ratings for the handling
qualities of the basic Learjet compared to the OBLTR, when no
uncertainty was present. It is interesting to note that pilots preferred
the decoupled performance of OBLTR overall when compared to the
basic Learjet, but the OBLTR steady-state roll rate was too slow and
noticeably different than the initial roll rate, preventing better ratings
for OBLTR [25–27]. A median Cooper–Harper rating of 3 was
assessed for all three controller variations with no uncertainties.
However, testing under uncertainty conditions, such as aft center of
gravity, negative directional stability, and high bank to AOS, yielded
consistently reduced handling quality ratings (6–8) for the basic
Learjet VSS flown by all evaluation pilots. Yet under the same flight
conditions, much improved close-to-baseline handling quality
characteristics (2–4) were recorded with the OBLTR controller in the
loop. Detailed overview and analysis of the U.S. Air Force TPS
OBLTR flight-test program can be found in [25–27].
Aircraft configuration
Pressure altitude, ft Gear Flaps
15,000 Up Up
15,000 Up Up
 2166
VIII. Conclusions
The main question addressed in this paper is related to the use of
robust and adaptive control methodologies to design flight critical
systems for piloted and autonomous aerial platforms. In particular,
the recently developed Observer-Based Loop Transfer Recovery
(OBLTR) (Baseline  Adaptive) dynamic output feedback control
architecture is presented, applied, and flight verified on the Calspan
VSS LJ-25B aircraft. In March of 2018, the OBLTR controller was
successfully implemented and flight evaluated at the U.S. Air Force
Test Pilot School, Edwards Air Force Base, California. The flight-test
plan included evaluations of the system closed-loop tracking
performance, stability, robustness, and the aircraft handling qualities
under nominal and off-nominal flight conditions. The paper presents
an overview of the OBLTR design, its application to Calspan VSS LJ-
25 aircraft, and a brief summary of flight-test evaluation results.
Detailed analysis of flight-test data, lessons learned, and Cooper–
Harper pilot ratings for the OBLTR controller can be found in
[25–27].
Downloaded by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on September 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G004328
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School
Class 17B Team Have PACMAN, whose pilots and flight-test
engineers relentlessly pursued and flawlessly executed a very
detailed Observer-Based Loop Transfer Recovery flight evaluation
plan, over the course of two weeks at Edwards Air Force Base,
California. The author would like to also recognize Chris Cotting, Jay
Kemper, and Calspan personnel for their dedicated technical support
and engineering assistance during the program. Recommendations
for Observer-Based Loop Transfer Recovery flight evaluations were
endorsed and sponsored by Sharon Stockbridge, Guidance,
Navigation & Control engineering team lead at Eglin Air Force
Base, Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
References
[1] Lavretsky, E., and Wise, K. A., Robust and Adaptive Control with
Aerospace Applications, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal
Processing, Springer–Verlag, London, 2013.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4396-3
[2] Lavretsky, E., “Adaptive Output Feedback Design Using Asymptotic
Properties of LQG/LTR Controllers,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, Vol. 57, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1587–1591.
doi:10.1109/TAC.2011.2174692
[3] Anderson, B. D. O., and Moore, J. B., Optimal Control: Linear
Quadratic Methods, Dover, New York, 1980.
[4] Kwakernaak, H., and Sivan, R., Linear Optimal Control Systems,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1972.
[5] Luenberger, D. G., “Observing the State of a Linear System,” IEEE
Transactions on Military Electronics, MIL-8, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1964,
pp. 74–80.
doi:10.1109/TME.1964.4323124
[6] Gibson, T. E., Annaswamy, A. M., and Lavretsky, E., “Closed–Loop
Reference Model Adaptive Control, Part I: Transient Performance,”
Proceedings of the American Control Conference, IEEE Publ.,
Piscataway, NJ, 2013.
doi:10.1109/ACC.2013.6580353
[7] Gibson, T. E., Annaswamy, A. M., and Lavretsky, E., “Closed–Loop
Reference Model Adaptive Control: Composite Control and Observer
Feedback,” Proceedings of the 11th IFAC International Workshop on
Adaptation and Learning in Control and Signal Processing, IEEE Publ.,
Piscataway, NJ, 2013.
doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2284005
[8] Lavretsky, E., “Transients in Output Feedback Adaptive Systems
with Observer-Like Reference Models,” International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 29, No. 12, 2015,
pp. 1515–1525.
doi:10.1002/acs.2557
LAVRETSKY
[9] Gibson, T. E., Qu, Z., Annaswamy, A. M., and Lavretsky, E., “Adaptive
Output Feedback Based on Closed-Loop Reference Models,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 60, No. 10, Oct. 2015,
pp. 2728–2733.
doi:10.1109/TAC.2015.2405295
[10] Balas, G., and Young, P., “Sensor Selection via Closed-Loop Control
Objectives,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 7, No. 6,
2003, pp. 692–704.
doi:10.1109/87.799670
[11] Doyle, J. C., Francis, B. A., and Tannenbaum, A. R., Feedback Control
Theory, Macmillan, New York, 1992.
[12] Aström, K. J., and Murray, R. M., Feedback Control Systems: An
Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, NJ, 2008.
[13] Ioannou, P., and Fidan, P., Adaptive Control Tutorial, SIAM, Advances
in Design and Control, Soc. for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
Philadelphia, PA, 2006.
doi:10.1137/1.9780898718652
[14] Lavretsky, E., “Reference Dynamics Modification in Adaptive
Controllers for Improved Transient Performance,” AIAA Paper 2011-
6200, 2011.
doi:10.2514/6.2011-6200
[15] Gibson, T. E., Annaswamy, A. M., and Lavretsky, E., “Improved
Transient Response in Adaptive Control Using Projection Algorithms
and Closed Loop Reference Models,” AIAA Paper 2012-4775, 2012.
doi:10.2514/6.2012-4775
[16] Thomson, C. M., Coleman, E. E., and Blight, J. D., “Integral LQG
Controller Design for a Fighter Aircraft,” Proceedings of AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA Paper 1987-
2452, 1987.
[17] Misra, P., “Numerical Algorithms for Squaring-Up Non-Square
Systems, Part II: General Case,” Proceedings of the American Control
Conference, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 1988.
[18] Malcom, L. G., and Tobie, H. N., “New Short Period Handling Quality
Criterion for Fighter Aircraft,” Boeing Co., Document D6-17841 T/N,
1965.
[19] Doyle, J. C., and Stein, G., “Multivariable Feedback Design: Concepts
for a Classical/Modern Synthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1981, pp. 4–16.
doi:10.1109/TAC.1981.1102555
[20] Stein, G., and Athans, M., “The LQG/LTR Procedure for Multivariable
Feedback Control Design,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
Vol. 32, No. 2, 1987, pp. 105–114.
doi:10.1109/TAC.1987.1104550
[21] Khalil, H. K., Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed., Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 1996.
[22] Narendra, K. S., and Annaswamy, A. M., Stable Adaptive Control,
Dover, New York, 2005.
[23] Lavretsky, E., and Gibson, T. E., Projection Operator in Adaptive
Systems, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2011, https://arxiv.org/abs/1112
.4232.
[24] Berger, T., Tischler, M., Hagerott, S. G., Cotting, M. C., Gray, W. R.,
Gresham, J., George, J., Krogh, K., and D’Argenio, A., Howland, J.,
et al., “Development and Validation of a Flight-Identified Full-Envelope
Business Jet Simulation Model Using Stitching Architecture,”
Proceedings of the AIAA SciTech Forum, AIAA Paper 2017-1550,
2017.
doi:10.2514/6.2017-1550
[25] Alt, E., Chappell, C., Eldan, Y., Heemstra, B., Guerrero, D., and
Lancaster, J., “Evaluation of Observer-Based Loop Transfer Recovery
Adaptive Controller (Project Have PACMAN),” Final Technical
Information Memorandum, U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School
USAFTPS-TIM-17B-03, June 2018.
[26] Cotting, M. C., “Experimental Flight Testing of Prototype Control Law
Designs at the USAF Test Pilot School,” AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum,
AIAA Paper 2019-1079, 2019.
doi:10.2514/6.2019-1079
[27] Cotting, M. C., Alt, E., Chappell, C., Heemstra, B., Guerrero, D., and
Lancaster, J., “Piloted Handling Qualities Evaluation of an OBLTR
Prototype Flight Control Law at the USAF Test Pilot School,” AIAA
Scitech 2019 Forum, AIAA Paper 2019-1082, 2019.
doi:10.2514/6.2019-1082