27-l

Solar Powered

Stratospheric

Research Aircraft

- Flight Test and System Identification

Derek L. Lisoski AeroVironment, Inc. 4685-3H Industrial Simi Valley, CA, 93063, USA Aeroflightdynamics Moffett

St.

Mark B. Tischler Directorate, NASA Ames Research Ctr Mail Stop N2 1 l-2 Field, CA 94035-1099, USA

1. SUMMARY On July 7th, 1997, the NASA Pathfnder solar-powered aircraft flew to a record altitude of 71,500 feet; establishing new world altitude records for electric powered and The Pathfinder platform, propeller-driven aircraft. developed by AeroVironment for NASAs Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program, is an unmanned solar-powered flying wing which serves as the frst of a series of technology demonstrators which are slated to include the 100,000 ft altitude Centurion and the multi-week duration Helios solar aircraft. During the 1997 flight test deployment at the Pacifie Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii, Pathfinder flew a total of six times, establishing the viability of a solar powered aircraft for scientific and commercial payload missions. During this flight test series, extensive use was made of the CIFERB2 frequency response analysis code for initial simulation verification, in-flight real-time stability determination, and post-flight system identification to ensure flight safety. This paper presents an overview of Pathtnder and the flight test program, outlines some of the analysis techniques used, and summarizes their results. 2. INTRODUCTION Signifcant progress towards the goal of long duration high altitude flight was achieved by AeroVironment on July 7th, 1997, when the frst test bed for a solar-powered RPA, called Pathfnder, achieved a record altitude of 71,500ft during a 14 hour flight at the US Navys Pacifie Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii. This altitude is higher than any previous propeller-driven or electrie powered aircrafi has achieved. AeroVironments of the NASA Technology developing environmental solar electric aircraft are funded as a part Environmental Research Aircrai? and Sensor (ERAST) program; this program is advanced aircraft and sensors for research in the Upper atmosphere.

Development of a reliable and autonomous flight control system (AFCS) for this class of aircrafi is very challenging. The CIFERB2 frequency domain analysis code has been used since 1995 during flight tests of Pathfinder, for both real-time and post-flight analysis. System identification was used along with low altitude flight test results to obtain a reliable quasi-linear six-degree of tieedom computer simulation model, which was then used for control system development, gain scheduling and high altitude stability margin prediction. During the actual high altitude flights, real-time frequency domain testing was used to obtain stability margin trends with altitude to ensure adequate margin remained as the aircrafl climbed. Subsequent post-flight system identification continues to improve the simulation mode1 and allows rapid evaluation of control system performance and design changes. Inflight analysis Will again be used on future flights as new altitude records are achieved, and for very long duration flights, stability analysis Will be used periodically to detect slow system degradation (such as the loss of actuators) that could not otherwise be easily detected. 3. PROJECT HISTORY

Since the late 197Os, the design development tenter of AeroVironment has specialized in the development of lightweight, high efficiency aircrafi345. In July 1980, the AeroVironment Gossamer Penguin (a three-quarter-scale variant of the Gossamer Albatross, the frst human-powered aircraft to fly the English Channel) was outfitted with a solar array and electric motor and flew a distance of 2 miles at Rogers Dry Lakebed, Edwards AFB, CA. Following the Penguin, a new more rugged design, the Dupont Solar Challenger, first flew on November 15th, 1980, and eventually flew a 260-Km flight fiom CergyPontoise, France Cjust outside of Paris) to RAF Manston, at Kent, England. After successfully flying the Penguin and Solar Challenger with pilots, the feasibility of an unpiloted, solar-powered aircraft that could stay aloft on solar energy for months at a time was studied. In order to achieve low weight, efficiency, and high reliability, a unique multi-engine, span-loaded, flying wing design was selected. A proof-ofconcept vehicle, HALSOL, which was one hundred feet in span and had eight motors and propellers distributed along the wing, completed a series of nine flights in the summer of 1983.

Solar powered aircraft are, of necessity, very efflcient. Pathfinder realizes this effciency through the use of an extremely lightweight (wing loading of 0.7 pounds per square foot) span-loaded flying wing structure, which gives the most effcient utilization of planform area for solar energy collection. This design has marginal static and dynamic stability characteristics, unique control methods, a very flexible structure, and it is dominated by unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic structural factors, many of which are normally neglected in traditional aircraft design.

Paper presented at the RT0 SC1 Symposium on Sysrem Identification for Integrated Aircraj? Development and Flight Testing, held in Madrid, Spain, 5-7 May 1998, and published in RT0 MP-11.

27-2 By 1992, energy storage techniques had improved enough to make very long missions feasible using solar power. In 1993 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) funded a series of successful low-altitude test flights of a refurbished HALSOL, now dubbed RAPTOR Pathtnder. In 1994, development of Pathtnder continued under the NASA ERAST program. On September llth, 1995, Pathfinder made a successful flight to 50,500; this represented a new altitude record almost 36,000 feet higher than any previous solar powered flight. In early 1997, Pathtnder was shipped to the Pacifc Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on the island of Kauai, in the Hawaiian Islands. This location offered good weather, a high average solar angle during the summer, and an almost ideal arrangement of restricted and military use airspace. On July 7th, 1997, Pathfinder took off at 8:34 AM, climbed to a peak altitude of 71,500 feet over the Pacifie Ocean at 3:36 PM, and then descended for a smooth, night landing at Barking Sands Airfield. This altitude is over 4,000 feet higher than the frst Pathfinder record flight which was flown in June, and is approximately 4,500 feet higher than any other propellerdriven aircraft has ever flown. 4. SYSTEM 4.1 General The Pathfinder RPA system67 consists of three main components: the Pathfinder aircraft itself, a Stationary Ground Control Station (GCS) fiom which the aircraft is flown for most of the flight, and a Mobile GCS, which is used for takeoff and landing. The Mobile GCS is a converted passenger van that contains a pilot controller and two telemetry display computers; it is manned by the mobile pilot, flight engineer, and director who control the aircrat? primarily by visual reference. Control of the Pathfinder is transferred to a Stationary GCS for flight altitudes above 1,000 feet. The Stationary GCS is a converted Army truck that contains a pilots controller and five telemetry display computers to navigate the aircraft and monitor the health of the aircrafts systems. It is manned by a pilot, flight engineer, stability and control engineer, communications engineer, and flight director who control the aircraft during the climb, loiter, and descent phases of the flight. The pilots controller includes all the switches, knobs, and Four gain sticks required for controlling the RPA. switches on the controller allow in-flight changes to be made to control system gains. Apple Macintosh computers are used for downlink telemetry data display and stability analysis. Downlink data is displayed in many formats on several different selectable display pages, including: * A Pilots Display, with moving tapes and bar graphs for critical flight parameters including airspeed, altitude, DESCRIPTION angle of attack pitch rate, etc. and sideslip, heading, power output,

A Navigation Display, which displays selectable GPS based moving maps with superimposed UAV position, range boundaries, flight termination footprint, ground track vector, wind vector, glide cane, altitude, waypoint locations, and FTS fa11 point. A Diagnostics Display, which tiom the two flight computers critical sensors and automatically out-of-range conditions. 4.2 Mission Description compares information and triply redundant flags discrepancies or

On a typical flight day, the mission countdown star& at 05:OO hrs, when preflight and range safety systems tests are performed, alter which the aircrafi is towed to the main runway for takeoff. Takeoff occurs between 08:30 and 11:OO hrs when there is sufficient solar energy for a sustained climb rate and when weather conditions permit a viable flight plan. During the high altitude missions, Pathfinder spends most of the day climbing and reaches peak altitude from 15:00-16:00 hrs. Once the mission is complete, Pathfnder begins its descent in the late aftemoon for a landing a few hours after sunset, usually between 22:00-23:00 hrs. During a high altitude flight, stability and control data is collected and analyzed in near-real time. By performing pre-programmed frequency sweeps in the longitudinal and lateral axes at roughly lO,OOO-foot altitude increments, the stability margins and open- and closed-loop aircraft responses are established using the CIFER@ analysis code. Decisions are then made on any required excitation amplitude or gain changes, which are then implemented by the flight crew. 4.3 Aircraft Description

Pathlnder is a very lightweight span-loaded flying wing with a span of 99 feet and a chord of 8 feet, as shown in Figure 1. The aircrafl features lightweight and strong materials used in a structurally efficient flying wing design, efftcient low-Reynolds number aerodynamics, redundancy in motors, props, control surfaces, and flight control hardware, and simple, highly reliable flight control software and hardware with soft failure modes. Detailed specifications are given in Table #l. Pathfinder has six electric motors that weigh 13 pounds each and consist of a fxed-pitch 79-inch propeller, solidstate motor with interna1 power electronics, nacelle, and cooling fins. Differential power to two tip motors on either side is used for lateral control. There is no active roll control since the wing dihedral provides sufficient roll stability. Twenty-six elevator control surfaces are attached to the wing trailing edge to provide pitch control. Pathlnder employs a large conformai solar array covering over 70% of the wings Upper surface to power the aircrafts electric motors and avionics. The solar array cari generate approximately 8,000 watts near solar noon.

21-3
99.0 Silicon Sqlar Array Elevators , (26)

DC Electric t&tor with Fixed Propeller

(6) Mid Pane! +3 Dihedral

Tip Pane1 +&Y

Dihedral

Extemal

Payload Lefl Pod: *Dual Redundant Flight Control System *Dual Redundant Datalink * Flight Terminaiion Syslem l Td Redundant Cdtical Sensors: *Dual GPS Receivers l Environmental Crmtrol System * Fixed Landing Geai

Right Pod: . C-Band Beacon . Mode 3C Transponder .3500 W-hr Lis02 Batte~ * Fixed Landing Gear

Pack

All Dimensions

are in ieet

Figure #l - Pathfinder

three view drawing.

Performance Parameter 1 English ISI Wingspan 99 ft 130m Chord 8 ft 2.4 m Length 11 ft 3.4 m Aircraft Weiaht without Pavload(s) 500 lb 230 ka Maximum Operating Altitude Without Payloads 75,000 ft 23,000 m With 50lb (23kg) Payload 49,000 ft 15,000 m Typical Flight Speed at 70,000 ft Equivalent 28 ftlsec 8.4 m/sec 115 ft/sec 35 m/sec Truc Average Vertical Climb Rate from Sea Level Up to 200 ft/min Up to 61 m/min Depending on Mission to 41,000 ft 64 ft/min. 19.4 m/min. / 0.32 misec Best Glide Sink Rate (Equivalent) Maximum Sink Rate (Equivalent) 138 ft/min. 42 rn/min. / 0.70 m/sec 3 deglsec @ SL 3 deglsec @ SL Turn Rate (max.) 1.7 deglsec Q 60,OOOft 1.7 deglsec @ 18,300 m Bank Anale (max.) 5 degrees 5 degrees Table #l - Pathfinder technical specifications.

5. AUTOMATIC 5.1 Stability

FLIGHT

CONTROL Issues

SYSTEM

and Control

Several design fcatures of solar electric aircraft such as Pathtnder make flight control system design very challenging. Since there is relatively little solar power available, these. aircraft must be very lightweight for their size. This and the fiying wing design mean a very low wing loading (0.7 psf, about the same as a small bird). Due to this lightweight, at low altitude unsteady effects due to the apparent mass of the air surrounding the aircrafi are important; in heave the additional apparent mass of the air amounts to 380 pounds, a very large fraction of the aircraft gross weight of 540 pounds. The apparent mass tensor is very geometry dependent; in yaw or plunge, for example,

the apparent mass is negligible. A light wing loading also means that the aircraft flies very slowly (about 28 feet per second is a normal cruise speed). This means that wake history effects are important; and in combination with unsteady effects, aerodynamic coefficients that are normally neglected cari have significant contributions. Low speeds and high altitudes also combine to make low Reynolds number aerodynamics very important in the overall design, non-linear Reynolds number effects at high altitude contribute to unusual aerodynamic results, and are suspected of preventing a climb to higher altitudes during the record flight in 1997. Being a lightweight structure, Pathfnder derives much of its strength and load alleviation fiom flexibility; the structure deflects vertically about 6 feet at the wingtips in

21-4

going fiom stationary on the ground to normal l-g flight. This flexibility, along with washout in the wingtips, means dihedralangleis a very strong function of both that load factor and airspeed. Being primarily a span loader, Pathfnder is also torsionally very flexible, non-linear aero-elasticeffectsare therefore predominant throughout the flight envelopeof the aircraft. Power also has a large at%ct on the aircraft, a large percentage the wing is in a propeller slipstream the of and thrust line is high above the vertical tenter of gravity. In addition to throttle position, motor power is a function of solar array output. This power output is a function of the sun angle on the array (which is a function of heading, airspeed, loadfactor, tum rate, time of day, time of year, and latitude), the numberof C!ouds,the Albedo of earth below, and the temperature. In short, control systemdesign must consider many different variables that would typically not be considered important.
5.2 Control System Description

one of 100 pilot-selected waypoints using GPS position data. A simplited block diagramof the flight control system architecture used on Pathtnder is shown in Figure 3. Fundamentally,the systemusesproportional and integral (PI) feedback loops on pitch rate and airspeed in the longitudinal axis and yaw rate and heading in the lateral axis. A feedforward loop of throttle to elevator (not shown) alleviates the nose down pitching moment associated with the high thrust line. Gains usedin the AFCS are scheduledwith altitude by multiplying the sea-levelgain by on, whereo is the density ratio at the current altitude and n is an altitude schedule predefinedindividually for each gain. For example,at 60,000feet, o = 0.094,SO altitude schedule = -0.25 for an n Kui would represent total multiplier of 0.094- = 1.81 a (+5.2 dB) at 60k. A set of four, three-position gain switches on the pilots controller areprogrammed prior to flight to encompass as muchof the expectedgain changerequirements possible. as
5.3 Computer Simulation

Pathtnder is remotely piloted through a dual radio frequency data link for communicatingwith the aircrafis automaticflight control system(AFCS) asshownin Figure 2. The dual-redundant airbome AFCS consists of two identical flight computers, uplink receivers, downlink transmitters,a triply redundant suite of sensors, and dual GPSreceivers. The designobjective was to allow for any Sing!epoint failure and still retum to basesafely. During normal flight, a waypoint mode outer control loop allowsthe AFCS to fly the RPA autonomously any to

Al1 of the above unsteady, aerodynamic,aero-elastic,and poweraffectscombine makePathfinder a difficult aircrat? to to reliably simulateprior to high altitude flights. A 6degree of freedom (6DOF) quasi-non-linear numerical simulation was developed prior to the early 1995 flight test series predict initial gainsand gain scheduling and to to develop and practice the in-flight frequency sweep testing techniquedescribedbelow.

Critical

Sensors

Ground

Svstem

Figure #2 - Pathfinder

control architecture.

27-5

-R
Sweep -) Command

Aircraft

vcmd

a) Lonaitudinal
Figure #3 - Pathfinder automatic flight control system architecture.

t +%
1)
KV+S

Alter initial low altitude flights, post-flight system improved the accuracy and identification greatly prediction capability of the simulation (See Figure #4). This prediction capability allowed gain schedules to be established with enough accuracy that the pilots controller switches could be used to make the relatively minor gain corrections required during subsequent high altitude flights. Currently, the simulation continues to be updated using the latest available flight test data in an attempt to better predict future flight test results, to help understand control anomalies discovered during flight testing, and to reliably assess the potential impact of developmental changes in the airframe and AFCS. 5.4 In-flight Control System Testing

conditions and sweeps used for these test points are kept the same (except for altitude), SO that trends cari be established and gain changes made before stability margins degrade to a dangerous level. For post-flight analysis and system identification, numerous additional test points are flown, each at a different condition of speed, power, altitude and excitation amplitude. On a typical flight, anywhere from 5 to 50 frequency sweeps Will be performed, depending on the goal of the mission. 5.5 In-flight Stability Analysis Results

In-flight real-time stability analysis has shown itself to be a valuable tool in allowing flights to high altitude without the traditional requirement of many successively higher flights with post-flight analysis between each. Using the data tiom Figure #5 and the above noted procedure, a longitudinal broken loop frequency response cari be obtained. This response represents the transfer function fmm (for example) the LONE and LONF signals noted on Figure #3a. Such a response is shown in Figure #6 as the thin solid line. Note that the coherence is high in the crossover region for all cases, which is generally true for all frequency responses used for analysis. From these broken loop responses we cari establish the gain and phase margins in the usual way. During the climb to high altitude, longitudinal stability margins remained fairly constant, with gain margins between 5 and 7 dB (increasing with altitude), phase margins between 45 and with altitude), crossover 85 degrees (increasing frequencies between 1 and 3 rps (decreasing with altitude) and 180 degree crossover frequencies of about 4 to 6 rps It appeared that some (also decreasing with altitude). additional longitudinal gain could be added at higher altitudes, providing better control and improving the flight control systems ability to damp out increasingly unstable open-loop longitudinal dynamics.

TO accomplish repeatable frequency sweep stability testing during flight, Sweep Waypoints were programmed into the AFCS prior to each flight, each waypoint number corresponding to a given type and amplitude of excitation on a given control input. Figure #5 presents a time history plot for a longitudinal frequency sweep performed during the high altitude 97-2 flight at 30,000 feet altitude and 28 fps EAS. Note the relative lack of off-axes response, and that all testing was performed with the AFCS fully active, thus the commanded and actual control positions do not correspond, due to control system feedback. Downlinked sweep data is collected and analyzed in the stationary GCS using the CIFER@ analysis code running on a DEC MicroVAX computer. Results are displayed, printed out, and compared with computer simulation and predicted responses. This procedure takes about 10 to 15 minutes to complete, i?om the time the sweep is started to having final results available for analysis. Norrnally, longitudinal and lateral frequency sweep tests are performed at about lO,OOO-foot altitude increments Flight during the entire ascent phase of the flight.

27-6

90 /

0 2 2. I -90 m a -180

1 Frequency (Radkec)

Figure #4 - Typical comparison

of simulation

and flight test lateral frequency

response

Bode plots.

Figure #5 - Typical time response

plot for elevator

(longitudinal)

frequency

sweep.

21-7 10 m 0 D 3 .z m %

-10

-20 90

~~

L. --~J..-~.--L.-i--i.l-^l~.~...~..1

.--..-..-

-L-l------

10

Frequency(Rad/sec)

Figure #6 - Typical longitudinal broken loop (LONE-LONF) altitude and excitation amplitude.

frequency

responses.

Note changes

with

A typical lateral broken loop (LATE to LATF in Figure #3b) frequency response is shown in Figure 7. Lateral stability margins are fairly consistent; with gain margins between 15 and 16 dB (almost constant with altitude), phase margins between 45 and 65 degrees (decreasing with altitude), crossover frequencies between 0.5 and 0.8 rps (decreasing with altitude), and 180 degree crossover frequencies of about 2.3 to 3.8 rps (also decreasing with The decreasing lateral phase margin was altitude).

somewhat problematic, although it was decreasing at a slow enough rate that at 71,000 feet altitude it was not yet a problem. Lateral gain margins are kept very high due to interna1 motor power electronic rate limits. It was feared that this could lead to limit cycle behavior, although due to poor handling qualities during landing, the gains have since been increased several dB at low altitude with no il1 effects.

90 0 a D Ei 2 -90

4000

lOO%Yaw 200% Yaw , ooyo yaw

*llllol 60000' ~~<..~" @-Jooo'

-180 -270 0.1 1 Frequency(Rad/sec)

Figure #7 - Typical lateral broken loop (LATE-LATF) and excitation amplitude.

frequency

responses.

Note changes

with altitude

27-8 5.5.1 Altitude Effects could develop, SO the gains were compromised to be suitable for both high and low power cases, with the pilot able to selectively increase or decrease gains as required. 5.5.4 Airspeed Effects

Typical altitude effects on the broken loop responses cari also be seen in Figure #6 and Figure #7 as the wide gray line, which represents the response at an altitude of 60,000 feet. High altitude is characterized by reduced open loop damping, reduced phase margins, and a requirement for correspondingly low control system authority. 5.5.2 Hysteresis Estimate

TO better establish the effects of non-linearitys and hysteresis inherent in the system, frequency sweeps of different excitation amplitudes cari be used. Figure #6 gives a comparison of two longitudinal frequency sweeps of different amplitudes at an altitude of 60,000 feet. The difference in the magnitude response indicates about 0.5 degrees of hysteresis in the elevator system. In the lateral direction (Figure #7), there is obviously very little effect of hysteresis. 5.53 Power Effects

At higher airspeeds, Pathfinder tends to lose much of its dihedral due to the washout in the wingtips forcing the tips to blow down. Airspeed could therefore be expected to have a signifcant effect on lateral frequency response. Figure #9 presents a comparison of two frequency responses at the high and low ends of the airspeed envelope. It appears that power (Figure #8) has a much larger influence on lateral control than does airspeed, although there is some reduced control authority and phase margin at the higher airspeeds. 5.6 Post-flight Analysis

Pathfnder relies on differential power for lateral control. During the descent, lateral sweeps were performed at different power settings to evaluate the available lateral control authority. Results cari be seen in Figure #8. Note the large change in magnitude response, with much reduced control authority at low power settings. This is obviously problematic during the descent phase, when power levels are low. Scheduling of lateral control system gains with power level has been considered, but, as noted above, power is a very strong function of sun angle (which varies with heading, for example), making this control architecture very diffcult to analyze; it was feared that large dynamic transients in the lateral control system

One of the first tasks after a high altitude flight is to assess gain changes (if any) that were required during the flight and to evaluate the as-flown stability margins. Changes to the gains, or gain re-scheduling, is then done to eliminate these changes on future flights, reducing flight crew workload. Stability or handling qualities issues are then addressed. Handling qualities during landing became an issue when operations were switched Eom Edwards dry lake in California, with a I-mile diameter landing target, to PRMF Post-flight in Hawaii with a 150-foot wide runway. analysis using CIFER@* indicated that more lateral gain and higher lateral rate limits could likely be tolerated at low altitudes, subsequent flights using higher gains and rates gave improved handling qualities.

2 0
u: 2

-90

01 . :
I

-180 -*,o
l

m-pLpI

. 1 Frequency(Radkec) 10

0.1

Figure #8 - Effect of power setting on lateral broken

loop responses.

27-9

0.1 Frequency

1 (Radkec)

Figure #9 - Effect of airspeed on lateral broken loop responses. nonlinear effects, motor rate limits, or propeller tip stalling at low airspeeds. Although the aircraft was flown safely and exhibited generally excellent handling qualities in a11of the 1997 flights, additional stability and control analyses are being performed in an attempt to better characterize flight test results. Another use of in-flight frequency sweep testing is for post-flight system identification. As an example of one technique, frequency sweep results have been used to identify the open loop frequency responses LATE/R and LATE/v (Figure #3b), which cari then be used either directly or in the 6DOF computer simulation model. Using the known control system gains in the feedback paths, the frequency responses RILATF and v/Rcmd cari be determined analytically and their frequency responses synthesized.
Flight SYnm

Stability problems encountered during the flights are also investigated. As an example, during the high altitude flight on July 7h, after the 180 tum, power reduction and initial descent horn the peak altitude of 71,500, an This was a uncommanded roll oscillation occurred. coupled pitch/yaw/roll instability (or wallowing similar to a Dutch roll but with large sideslip component) of about a 20 sec period that had a maximum amplitude of about 12 roll angle. During the remainder of the 97-2 flight and in successive flights, extensive frequency sweep testing was performed to investigate the effects of altitude, gain setting, and power levels on the aircrafts lateral dynamic characteristics. Likely causes for the uncommanded oscillation near peak altitude include dynamic coupling with the magnetic compass, coupling between lateral and longitudinal axes, propeller or wing Reynolds number

10 r

*-

1 Frequency (Radkec)

Figure #lO - Illustration of synthesized

broken loop responses

in comparison to flight test results.

27-10 Using the measured open loop responses and the synthesized control system responses, an overall analytical broken loop response cari be calculated directly and compared to the flight test broken loop response, as shown in Figure 10; note that the agreement is very good in the region near crossover. The measured in-flight open loop responses, or the computer model, cari then be used to test additional experimental control system configurations with different gains, gain schedules or loop architectures, as illustrated by the wide gray line in Figure #lO, which represent the predicted lateral response in the high gain setting of the pilots controller. This response compares well with that obtained during flight. 7. CONCLUSIONS Continuing changes to airframe and flight control systems require continued use and improvement of frequency response and system identification tools and techniques. During the summer of 1998, NASA and AeroVironment plan to fly an upgraded Pathfinder on several high altitude missions above 80,000 feet fiom the Pacitc Missile Range For this new aircrafi, dubbed Facility, Kauai. changes include replacing the tenter PathfinderPlus, wing section with a 20-foot longer section incorporating the Centurion aircraft airfoil, new higher efflciency solar cells, and higher efficiency propellers and electric motors. Such rapid evolution necessitates the use of rapid analysis and design techniques, and makes in-flight identification and testing vital to continued flight safety. The success of the recent Pathfnder flight test program validated many of the enabling technologies required for high altitude, long duration flight, as well as demonstrating that solar airplanes cari be used for beneficial and meaningful science missions. Integral to models and control system this success, engineering analysis techniques proved capable of predicting and rapidly evaluating the performance of Pathfnders systems to a high degree of accuracy throughout the entire flight The extensive amount of aerodynamic and envelope. control system data, system performance data, and operational experience that was gained during the 1997 deployment Will aid with the development of the 100,000 foot altitude Centurion solar aircraf? to be flown in 1999 and the multi-week duration Helios solar aircraft to be flown in 2002. 7. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Kirk Flittie, Bob Curtin, Bart Hibbs and Ray Morgan for their direct contributions to this paper. The success of the 1997 Pathfinder flight test of all of the design, reflects the contributions manufacturing, and flight test personnel at AeroVironment, Inc, as well as the contributions of flight test and range operations personnel f?om NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, NASA Ames Research Center, the US Navys Pacifie Missile Range Facility, and the State of Hawaii. 4. 7. REFERENCES 1. Baer-Riedhart, J., NASA Environmental Aircraft and Sensor Technology Program, America, January 1998. Research Aerospace

2.

Tischler, M.B. , Cauffman, M.G., Frequency-Response Method for Rotorcraft System Identification: Flight Applications to BO-105 Coupled Rotor/Fuselage Dynamics, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol 37, No 3, pgs 3-17, July 1992. Cowley, M., Morgan, W.R., and MacCready, P., Bionic Bat Stored Energy Human Powered Speed Aircraft, AIAA Paper 85-1447, AIAA 21st Joint Propulsion Conference, Monterey, California, July 1985. Mitchell, D.G., and Jex, H..R., Flight Testing the Gossamer Albatross Human-Powered Aircraft, AIAA Paper 83-2699, November 1983. MacCready, P., Lissman , P., Morgan, W.R., and Burke, J.D., Sun Powered Aircrat? Design, AIAA Paper Sl0916, May 1981. Brown, S., The Etemal April 1994. Airplane, Popular Science,

3.

5.

6. 7.

Morgan, W. R., Solar Electric UAVs Repeater Platforms-A Lower Cost Satellites, AIAA, 1995.

as Atmospheric Alternative to