This patent relates generally to aircraft and, more particularly, to closed loop control of aircraft control surfaces.
Some aircraft employ a variable camber approach to tailor the shape of an airfoil such as, for example, a trailing edge or other control surface of an aircraft wing. Tailoring the shape of the airfoil allows adjustment of lift characteristics during takeoff. Additionally, the position (e.g., deflection, angle, etc.) of the airfoil may affect drag during cruising speeds. Systems that adjust the airfoil during cruise to lower drag usually rely on a table (e.g., a table look-up) of tabulated reference aircraft data to adjust the airfoil during flight. However, such tables do not usually take into account factors that influence the instantaneous performance of the aircraft such as aircraft-to-aircraft variability, systematic variations, random disturbances, etc.
An example method includes measuring a flight metric of an aircraft during flight and calculating, using a processor, a deflection of a control surface of the aircraft based on the flight metric. The example method also includes adjusting the deflection based on the calculated deflection to reduce a drag coefficient of the aircraft.
Another example method includes measuring a flight metric of an aircraft, adjusting a control surface of the aircraft to a first angle, remeasuring the metric and calculating, using a processor, a second angle of the control surface based on one or more of a flight condition, the measured flight metric, or the re-measured flight metric to reduce drag of the aircraft. The example method also includes adjusting the control surface to the second angle.
Another example method includes adjusting an aircraft control surface to a first angle, measuring a flight metric after the aircraft reaches steady state, calculating, using a processor, a second angle of the aircraft control surface based on the measured flight metric to reduce a drag coefficient of the aircraft and adjusting the aircraft control surface to the second angle.
Wherever possible, the same reference numbers will be used throughout the drawing(s) and accompanying written description to refer to the same or like parts. As used in this disclosure, stating that any part is in any way positioned on (e.g., positioned on, located on, disposed on, or formed on, etc.) another part, means that the referenced part is either in contact with the other part, or that the referenced part is above the other part with one or more intermediate part(s) located therebetween. Stating that any part is in contact with another part means that there is no intermediate part between the two parts.
Closed loop control of control surfaces (e.g., flaps, rudders, ailerons, etc.) of an aircraft are disclosed herein. During takeoff, the control surfaces may work to provide the appropriate flight dynamics to allow or facilitate the aircraft taking off from a runway or landing. During cruise and/or takeoff of the aircraft, the positions, angles, or deflections of one or more control surfaces may impact the overall drag coefficient of the aircraft. Multiple control surfaces pose a multi-dimensional problem to be solved via which the drag coefficient may be reduced (e.g., minimized and/or optimized). Drag coefficient reduction can improve fuel economy of the aircraft and, therefore, reduce fuel costs and carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions. The examples disclosed herein allow continuous optimization of the positions of the control surfaces and/or allow optimization of the positions of the control surfaces based on unique and/or up-to-date or current conditions of the aircraft (e.g., weight reduction due to fuel consumption, etc.).
The examples disclosed herein may be used to reduce drag coefficient of an aircraft during flight through adjustment of one or more control surfaces of the aircraft. The examples disclosed herein provide current metric data to an estimation and optimization algorithm having an extended Kalman filter to adjust the positions of one or more control surfaces to reduce (e.g., minimize) the overall drag of the aircraft. The estimation and optimization algorithm of the disclosed examples may be used in conjunction with a search pattern lookup and provide uncertainty scaling to determine a perturbation deflection (e.g., perturbation, incremental deflection, etc.) to be combined with an estimated calculated delta resulting in a resultant deflection. In some examples, the estimated calculated delta is a change in control surface deflection calculated to provide the lowest overall drag of the aircraft. This calculated control surface delta may be provided to the control system to cause the control surface to displace (e.g., deflect) by the defined control surface delta. In some examples, the control surfaces are incrementally deflected (e.g., perturbed) to provide the resultant deflection described above. In other words, the control surfaces and/or the calculated delta are perturbed to gather data that may be used to characterize the drag coefficient of the aircraft as a function of control surface position(s).
In some examples, table lookup data, which may be generated through tabulated reference data gathered through numerous aircraft and/or calculations, is used by the estimation and optimization algorithm to continuously estimate the calculated delta for the aircraft control surface. In some examples, the table lookup data is modified based on the estimation and optimization algorithm. In particular, estimates provided by the table are updated by measurements taken during flight of the aircraft. In some examples, the degree to which the table lookup data is applied varies. In some examples, the metric is drag coefficient or thrust. In some examples, the control surfaces are only adjusted for a specified time after cruise speed has been reached. In some examples, the degree to which the control surface is deflected may vary based on behavior of the metric. In some examples, multiple control surfaces are independently adjusted.
As used in the examples disclosed herein, metric data (e.g., flight metric data, flight metric(s), etc.) describes data (e.g., values, table value, etc.) that may be measured and/or calculated from measured data at one or more sensors, for example. Metric data may be measured and calculated at numerous sensors and/or processor(s) and may include, but is not limited to, drag coefficient, thrust, fuel consumption, cruise performance and/or cruise range, etc.
The control surfaces 202 of the illustrated example may be independently moved (e.g., deflected) to control the load distribution in different directions over the wing structure 200. Load distribution and/or flight characteristics may be adjusted in a chordwise direction generally indicated by arrows 216. Likewise, load distribution and/or flight characteristics may be adjusted in a spanwise direction generally indicated by arrows 218.
Load distributions over the spanwise direction of the wing structure 200 are illustrated in
To ensure that sufficient information is available to generate such estimates and/or characterize the behavior of the metric data 410 associated with drag coefficient for example, the control surface, in some examples, is incrementally deflected (e.g., perturbed). In this example, a perturbation deflection (e.g., perturbation, incremental deflection, etc.) 412 is added to the calculated deflection change 406 via a data operation 414 yielding a search pattern centered on a current estimate. In some examples, the Kalman filter framework estimates sensitivity of the metric data 410 (e.g., sensitivity of the metric data 410 to changes and/or perturbations of the control surface) to adjust an uncertainty scaling factor 418 and/or the perturbation deflection 412. In some examples, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 utilizes a quadratic estimate to calculate deflection change 406 and/or the uncertainty scaling factor 418.
In this example, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 provides the calculated deflection change 406 to the data operation 414 and the uncertainty scaling factor 418 to a data operation 420. A search pattern lookup 422 of the illustrated example provides a multidimensional search pattern (e.g., search pattern matrix) to the data operation 420, which multiplies the uncertainty scaling factor 418 with the search pattern (e.g., a search pattern matrix) provided from the search pattern lookup 422 resulting in the perturbation deflection 412. The search pattern of the illustrated example can be scaled or disengaged by the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 via the estimated uncertainty scaling factor 418 to decrease (e.g., minimize) or eliminate incremental deflections or perturbations applied to the control surface. In some examples, the perturbation deflection 412 is based on scaled uncertainty levels computed within the estimation process of the estimation and optimization algorithm 404. In particular, scaling can lead to large perturbations when there is a relatively large uncertainty regarding the optimal deflection of the control surface. In multi-dimensional examples (e.g., multiple flaps), perturbation of each of the control surfaces may be scaled independently of one another (e.g., independent scaling).
As mentioned above, in this example, the perturbation deflection 412 and the calculated deflection change 406 are added (e.g., an addition operation, summed, etc.) at the data operation 414 to provide a resultant deflection 426 to deflect a control surface(s) via the plant 408, which may have numerous actuators to deflect the control surface(s). While a resultant deflection 426 is provided to the plant 408 in this example, the calculated surface deflection may, alternatively, be provided directly to the plant 408 from the estimation and optimization algorithm 404. The plant 408 of the illustrated example, in turn, provides the metric data 410 to the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 via sensors in the plant 408. In this example, the plant 408 provides the metric data 410 after the aircraft 401 has reached steady-state conditions after deflecting the control surface(s) (e.g., measured after the time necessary for the measured metric to reach a steady-state condition).
The estimation and optimization algorithm 404 of the illustrated example determines and/or reduces a metric value such as, for example, drag coefficient. A minimal value estimation framework of the illustrated example may be demonstrated by the following steps. For example, a calculated u, which may represent a deflection that lowers and/or minimizes drag coefficient (e.g., an optimal deflection), may be computed based on parameter estimates, {{circumflex over (Q)}i}. A primary assumption is that such a function may be estimated by a quadratic function of a controlled variable such as trailing edge and/or leading-edge surface position(s), for example. A controlled variable, u, may be represented as:
f(u)=uTQ2u+Q1u+Q0 (1),
where uεm, Q2εm×m, Q1ε1×m, Q0ε and it is assumed that fm(u)εm→.
Because Equation 1 is quadratic in u, there is a defined calculated value, u*, that pertains to a minimum value of the function and/or drag coefficient, for example, and may be calculated by differentiating Equation 1, which results in Equation 2 below:
The calculated value of u* may therefore be represented in Equation 3 as:
Equation 4 defines Hû* as:
Given a state estimate covariance, Σx, an approximate estimate of covariance of the minimizing value as shown in Equation 5:
Σû*≈Hû*ΣxHû*T (5)
The computation of Hû* may be complex due to the term, Q2−1. However, in some examples, the following formula is used to calculate
to compute a desired Jacobian is shown in Equation 6:
The relationships described above demonstrate an example in which the extended Kalman filter may be implemented. Such examples may use matrices to characterize the behavior of the systems (e.g., characterize metric behavior related to changes in control surface deflection). While an extended Kalman filter is shown, any other mathematical relationship, equations, etc. may be used to estimate control surface deflections based on metric data, for example.
The degree to which the table lookup data 402 is applied to the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 may be varied. In examples where the table lookup data 402 is not applied, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 relies primarily on the metric data measurement(s) 410 provided from the plant 408. In other examples, the table lookup data 402 is applied to a large extent to the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 to minimize control surface perturbations. In other examples, the table lookup data 402 is used in a balanced approach for relatively reduced perturbation requirements. In some examples, only the table lookup data 402 is applied using tabulated data to directly update the resultant deflection 426. In other examples, the degree to which the table lookup data 402 is applied may be changed by synthetic measurement updating, in which the Kalman filter framework allows uncertainty in the table derived values to be incorporated in the update of the estimator state. In particular, the steps of such a process include performing a Kalman update of the states assuming direct measurement of the metric function parameters and sampling the metric at the current location to correct any biasing that developed during the update process. In some examples, incorporating the table lookup data 402 improves tabulated data and/or health monitoring of the control system 400.
In some examples, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 may update the table lookup data 402 based on the characterized behavior of the metric. In other words, the estimation and optimization algorithm may introduce incremental changes to the recommended control surface position(s) of the table lookup data 402 based on determined behavior of the metric and/or data measured at the plant 408 during flight. In particular, stored control surface position data of the table lookup data 402 may be updated to reflect updates based on specific metric behavior data of an aircraft that travels a particular trajectory regularly, for example.
In some examples, process noise parameters may be introduced to the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 to model random disturbances applied to the state dynamics. In some examples, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 detects changes and/or certain behavior (e.g., divergence from predicted behavior, significant change, etc.) of the metric data 410 and re-engages the search pattern lookup 422 to confirm or update the calculated deflection 406 and/or the resultant deflection 426. In some examples, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 selects a search pattern based on metric behavior and/or metric behavior changes. In some examples, the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 ignores the metric data 410 if the metric data 410 is considered invalid by, for example, applying a statistical test such as a χ-squared (chi-squared) test.
Flowcharts representative of example methods for implementing the control system 400 of
As mentioned above, the example methods of
Next, the control surface is moved (e.g., deflected, actuated, etc.) to the calculated deflection (e.g., effective deflection, displacement, etc.) (block 510). In this example, the metric is then re-measured after the control surface has been adjusted (block 512). In some examples, the metric is not re-measured until the aircraft has reached steady state conditions. After the metric is re-measured, it is determined whether the control surface should be readjusted (block 513) by the estimation and optimization algorithm 404, for example. Such a determination may be based on convergence criteria (e.g., a calculated deflection only varies by a small degree to the previously calculated deflection of a previous iteration). In some examples, the control surface may have a time limitation to be adjusted (e.g., the control surface is only adjusted for a time period after the aircraft has reached cruising speed). In some examples, this determination may be accomplished by the calculated narrowing of the determined error band (e.g., a narrowing of an error band surrounding an estimate) in the estimation and optimization algorithm 404, for example. If it is determined that the control surface is to be readjusted (block 514), another surface deflection of the control surface is calculated based on the re-measured metric (block 516), table lookup data, and/or metric data obtained from deflection of the control surfaces, and, thus, a corresponding predicted metric value is predicted (block 509) and the control surface is adjusted to that calculated surface deflection (block 510). In contrast, if it is determined that the control surface is not to be adjusted (block 514), the process ends (block 518).
The metric is then re-measured (block 608), which may occur after the aircraft has achieved steady state conditions with the control surface being at the first angle. A second angle is then calculated based on one or more of the flight condition, the measured metric, or the re-measured metric (block 610). Such a calculation may use the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 and/or Equations (1)-(4) described above in connection with
The processor platform 700 of the illustrated example includes a processor 712. The processor 712 of the illustrated example is hardware. For example, the processor 712 can be implemented by one or more integrated circuits, logic circuits, microprocessors or controllers from any desired family or manufacturer.
The processor 712 of the illustrated example includes a local memory 713 (e.g., a cache). The processor 712 of the illustrated example is in communication with a main memory including a volatile memory 714 and a non-volatile memory 716 via a bus 718. The volatile memory 714 may be implemented by Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM), Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM), RAMBUS Dynamic Random Access Memory (RDRAM) and/or any other type of random access memory device. The non-volatile memory 716 may be implemented by flash memory and/or any other desired type of memory device. Access to the main memory including the volatile memory 714 and the non-volatile memory 716 is controlled by a memory controller.
The processor platform 700 of the illustrated example also includes an interface circuit 720. The interface circuit 720 may be implemented by any type of interface standard, such as an Ethernet interface, a universal serial bus (USB), and/or a PCI express interface.
In the illustrated example, one or more input devices 722 are connected to the interface circuit 720. The input device(s) 722 permit(s) a user to enter data and commands into the processor 712. The input device(s) can be implemented by, for example, an audio sensor, a microphone, a camera (still or video), a keyboard, a button, a mouse, a touchscreen, a track-pad, a trackball, isopoint and/or a voice recognition system.
One or more output devices 724 are also connected to the interface circuit 720 of the illustrated example. The output devices 724 can be implemented, for example, by display devices (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a liquid crystal display, a cathode ray tube display (CRT), a touchscreen, a tactile output device, a printer and/or speakers). The interface circuit 720 of the illustrated example, thus, typically includes a graphics driver card, a graphics driver chip or a graphics driver processor.
The interface circuit 720 of the illustrated example also includes a communication device such as a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a modem and/or network interface card to facilitate exchange of data with external machines (e.g., computing devices of any kind) via a network 726 (e.g., an Ethernet connection, a coaxial cable, a cellular telephone system, etc.).
The processor platform 700 of the illustrated example also includes one or more mass storage devices 728 for storing software and/or data. Examples of such mass storage devices 728 include floppy disk drives, hard drive disks, compact disk drives, Blu-ray disk drives, RAID systems, and digital versatile disk (DVD) drives.
Coded instructions 732 to implement the methods of
A second plot 820 of the illustrated example represents drag coefficient of the aircraft as a function of time. Like the horizontal axis 802 of the first plot 800, a horizontal axis 822 also represents time as a unitless measurement. A vertical axis 824 of the illustrated example represents drag coefficient. In this example, a predicted line 826 represents the predicted minimal (e.g., optimal) drag coefficient from an algorithm such as the estimation and optimization algorithm 404 described above in connection with
Although certain example methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture have been disclosed herein, the scope of coverage of this patent is not limited thereto. On the contrary, this patent covers all methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture fairly falling within the scope of the claims of this patent. While aircraft are described, the example apparatus may be applied to vehicles, aerodynamic structures, etc. While the examples described have been primarily related to an aircraft during cruise, the examples may be applied to takeoff or any other appropriate stage pertaining to the aircraft.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2350751 | Gliubich | Jun 1944 | A |
3822047 | Schuldt, Jr. | Jul 1974 | A |
4029271 | Murphy et al. | Jun 1977 | A |
4094479 | Kennedy, Jr. | Jun 1978 | A |
4106730 | Spitzer et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4615213 | Hagen | Oct 1986 | A |
4725026 | Krafka et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4729528 | Borzachillo | Mar 1988 | A |
4821981 | Gangsaas et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4838503 | Williams | Jun 1989 | A |
4899284 | Lewis et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
5050086 | Lambregts | Sep 1991 | A |
5056741 | Bliesner et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5170969 | Lin | Dec 1992 | A |
5375794 | Bleeg | Dec 1994 | A |
5442958 | Hagen | Aug 1995 | A |
5596332 | Coles et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5669582 | Bryant et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5722615 | Bilange et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5838239 | Stern | Nov 1998 | A |
5839699 | Bliesner | Nov 1998 | A |
5908176 | Gilyard | Jun 1999 | A |
5951608 | Osder | Sep 1999 | A |
6152405 | Muller | Nov 2000 | A |
6305218 | Foster | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6330483 | Dailey | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6531967 | Djorup | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6553333 | Shenk | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6563452 | Zheng et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6721682 | Moore | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6785610 | Baker et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6845303 | Byler | Jan 2005 | B1 |
7031811 | Parsons et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7228227 | Speer | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7248967 | Hagstedt | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7284984 | Zyskowski | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7305286 | Younkin et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7379839 | Cronin et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7494094 | Good et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7539561 | Nonami et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7641152 | Onu et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7726610 | Good et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
8086362 | Dupre et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8219264 | Blake | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8219266 | Puig et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8255101 | Virelizier et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8356766 | Garthaffner | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8376284 | Lewis et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8424810 | Shmilovich et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8437887 | Coulmeau | May 2013 | B2 |
8447443 | Ryan et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
8538607 | Manfred et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8788122 | Sankrithi | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8949090 | Whitehead et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9193440 | Moser et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
20020089432 | Staggs et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020171563 | Djorup | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030014165 | Baker et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030222795 | Holforty et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040070521 | Greene | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040111190 | Van De Kreeke | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050011994 | Sakurai et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050114023 | Williamson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050116108 | Morgenstern | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050151028 | Pohl et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050171652 | Speer | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050230563 | Corcoran, III | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050242235 | Delaplace | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050269456 | Saggio, III et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060015247 | Speer | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060049308 | Good et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074558 | Williamson et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060216674 | Baranov et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060244637 | Baranov et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070102565 | Speer et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070103340 | Baranov et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070136030 | Delaplace et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20080030375 | Cotton et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080255713 | Onu et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090302173 | Hanchey et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100064766 | Nugent et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100152926 | Onu et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100200704 | Berens et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100241294 | Virelizier et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100252674 | Lang | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100283635 | Brinkman et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110004361 | Goupil et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110057830 | Sampigethaya et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110062278 | Ulrich et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110127385 | Morris | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110270473 | Reynolds et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110282524 | Mutuel et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120004844 | Sahasrabudhe et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120032030 | Ruckes et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120053916 | Tzidon | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120061506 | Gomez et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120078540 | McIntyre | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120083946 | Maldonado et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120150426 | Conway | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120286102 | Sinha et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120325977 | Giesseler | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130226374 | Hagerott et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130311011 | Malta | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130335243 | Smyth, IV et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130338859 | Yamasaki | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130345910 | Kerho | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140214243 | Whitehead et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140236399 | Oudin | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20150083852 | Moser et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0193442 | Sep 1986 | EP |
1547917 | Jun 2005 | EP |
2465770 | Jun 2012 | EP |
2974955 | Jan 2016 | EP |
2902756 | Dec 2007 | FR |
2186849 | Aug 1987 | GB |
2444742 | Jun 2008 | GB |
WO9915403 | Apr 1999 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Glenn Gilyard and Martín España, “On the Use of Controls for Subsonic Transport Performance Improvement: Overview and Future Directions,” NASA Technical Memorandum 4605, NASA Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Program, Aug. 1994, 18 pages. |
Glenn Gilyard, “Development of a Real-Time Transport Performance Optimization Methodology,” NASA Technical Memorandum 4730, NASA Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Program, Jan. 1996, 18 pages. |
Gilyard et al., “Flight Test of an Adaptive Configuration Optimization System for Transport Aircraft,” NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Jan. 1999, 17 pages. |
Griffin et al., “Intelligent Control for Drag Reduction on the X-48B Vehicle,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 8-11, 2011, 28 pages. |
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Examiner's Report”, issued in connection with Canadian Patent Application No. 2,887,795, issued on Apr. 22, 2016, 3 pages. |
European Patent Office, “Extended European Search Report”, issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 15170142.2, issued on Feb. 12, 2016, 9 pages. |
Airbus, “Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance,” Jan. 2002, 216 pages. |
Chichka, et al., “Peak-Seeking Control for Drag Reduction in Formation Flight”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 29, No. 5, 2006, 13 pages. |
Delta Virtual Airlines, “Boeing 777-200ER Aircraft Operating Manual”, Nov. 2005, 28 pages. |
European Patent Office, “European Search Report”, issued in connection with Application No. EP14185998.3, issued Feb. 13, 2015, 2 pages. |
Glenn Gilyard, “Development of a Real-Time Transport Performance Optimization Methodology”, NASA Technical Memorandum 4730, NASA Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Program, Jan. 1996, 18 pages. |
Gilyard, et al., “Flight Test of an Adaptive Configuration Optimization System for Transport Aircraft”, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Jan. 1999, 17 pages. |
Gilyard, et al., “On the Use of Controls for Subsonic Transport Performance Improvement: Overview and Future Directions”, NASA Technical Memorandum 4605, NASA Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Program, Aug. 1994, 18 pages. |
Griffin, et al., “Intelligent Control for Drag Reduction on the X-48B Vehicle”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 8-11, 2011, 28 pages. |
Viaziar Hemati, “Vortex-Based Aero-and Hydrodynamic Estimation”, Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA, 2013, 177 pages. |
Hemati, et al., “Wake Sensing for Aircraft Formation Flight”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Aug. 13-16, 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 12 pages. |
Ray, et al., “Flight Test Techniques Used to Evaluate Performance Benefits During Formation Flight”, NASA/TP-2002-210730, Aug. 2002, 25 pages. |
The Boeing Company, “777 Flight Crew Operations Manual”, Dec. 15, 2003, 46 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Restriction Requirement”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/752,119, dated Dec. 24, 2013, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/752,119, dated Mar. 14, 2014, 23 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowability”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/034,940, dated Oct. 23, 2015, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/752,119, dated Sep. 18, 2014, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/034,940, dated Jun. 4, 2015, 9 pages. |
Vachon, et al., “F/A-18 Performance Benefits Measured During the Autonomous Formation Flight Project”, NASA/TM-2003-210734, Sep. 2003, 36 pages. |
Sriram Venkataramanan, Abstract of “Dynamics and Control of Multiple UAVs Flying in Close Proximity”, Master's Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Aug. 2004, 1 page. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/034,940, dated Sep. 30, 2015, 22 pages. |
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Examiner's Report”, issued in connection with Canadian Patent Application No. 2,887,795, issued on Feb. 15, 2017, 4 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160229522 A1 | Aug 2016 | US |