Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25 (2012) 493-499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cja

Reconfigurable Flight Control Design for Combat Flying Wing with

Multiple Control Surfaces
WANG Lei, WANG Lixin*
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

Received 9 May 2011; revised 9 September 2011; accepted 11 October 2011

Abstract
With control using redundant multiple control surface arrangement and large-deflection drag rudders, a combat flying wing
has a higher probability for control surface failures. Therefore, its flight control system must be able to reconfigure after such
failures. Considering three types of typical control surface failures (lock-in-place (LIP), loss-of-effectiveness (LOE) and float),
flight control reconfiguration characteristic and capability of such aircraft types are analyzed. Because of the control surface
redundancy, the aircraft using the dynamic inversion flight control law already has a control allocation block. In this paper, its
flight control configuration during the above failures is achieved by modifying this block. It is shown that such a reconfigurable
flight control design is valid, through numerical simulations of flight attitude control task. Results indicate that, in the circum-
stances of control surface failures with limited degree and the degradation of the flying quality level, a combat flying wing
adopting this flight control reconfiguration approach based on control allocation could guarantee its flight safety and perform
some flight combat missions.

Keywords: flight control; reconfiguration; control allocation; control surface failure; flying wing; multiple control surfaces; drag
rudder

1. Introduction1 of control surfaces and the large-deflection use of drag

There are three types of typical aircraft control sur-
face failures [1]: lock-in-place (LIP), loss-of-effective-
ness (LOE) and float. When these failures occur, they
will affect the control capability of the aircraft. Even
worse, they will endanger its flight safety.
For an attack flying wing with moderate or low as-
pect ratio, in order to guarantee sufficient control mo-
ments in three axes, it is usually configured with re-
dundant multiple control surfaces [2-3] consisting of two
pairs of elevons and two pairs of drag rudders. Because
the drag rudders rely on generating additional drag to
realize the directional control of the aircraft, their de-
flections are usually comparatively large [4]. A large set
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-10-82338821.
E-mail address: bhu_wlx@tom.com
1000-9361 © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi: 10.1016/S1000-9361(11)60412-3
rudders will increase the failure probability for control
surfaces, and enlarge the complicate degree of such
failures. Hence, there is a great need to study new
flight control reconfiguration approaches for such
novel configuration aircraft types during control sur-
face failures.
The aircraft chosen for the study is a typical combat
flying wing. Compared with the conventional aircraft,
flight control reconfiguration characteristic and capa-
bility of such aircraft types after control surface fail-
ures are analyzed in the paper. For the two characteris-
tics of multiple control surface redundant deployment
and that a control allocation block is included in the
dynamic inversion flight control system, this paper
applies control allocation to the reconfigurable flight
control design of the flying wing following control
surface failures, so as to redistribute control surfaces,
thereby solving its reconfiguration problem. Until re-
cently, few studies have been done on the reconfigur-
able flight control design of the flying wing based on
· 494 · WANG Lei et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25(2012) 493-499
control allocation. This paper is aimed at studying
principle, implement and validity of this approach. The
results can be used for references in the design re-
searches of the reconfigurable flight control system for
such novel configuration aircraft types.
2. Aircraft Description
The typical combat flying wing is designed for the
tactical attack mission, with the ability to perform mis-
sions of air-to-air combat, ground attack, etc. Com-
pared with the conventional aircraft, it is equipped with
more control surfaces (see Fig. 1), and each of them
can operate independently.
Fig. 1 Control surface arrangements of conventional air-
craft and flying wing.
Inboard elevons (IEs) and outboard elevons (OEs)
are used for roll or pitch control [3], and their position
limits are 30°-30°. Split drag rudders (SDRs) and
spoiler slot deflectors (SSDs) are drag rudders used for
yaw control with coupling effects in roll and pitch [3-4],
and their position limits are 0°-60°. Rate limits of the
eight control surfaces are 80-80 (°)/s.
For the flying wing, due to the characteristics of de-
graded multi-axis stability [5], multiple control surface
arrangement and strong nonlinear dynamic feature, a
attitude track flight control system [6] with control al-
location is designed based on the theory of nonlinear
dynamic inversion [7]. Its overall architecture is shown
in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Flight attitude control system.
Control allocation [8] can cope with the redundant
problem about the number of control surfaces exceed-
ing the desired control moments. It is an indispensable
block in the combat flying wing flight control system,
which can allocate the desired control moments de-
rived from dynamic inversion to every control surface.
3. Analysis of Flight Control Reconfiguration
Characteristic and Capability
The conventional aircraft usually adopts analytical
redundancy [9]. This mode utilizes comparatively weak
aerodynamics coupling effect among control surfaces
with different functionalities, and relieves their inher-
No.4
ent functionality constraints, and then the reconfigura-
tion is achieved by certain fault-tolerant algorithms.
Generally speaking, in the case of the conventional
configuration, roll control is fulfilled by its aileron,
pitch control by elevator, and yaw control by rudder.
After the aileron fails, the differential deflection of the
elevator can achieve reconfiguration. When the eleva-
tor is in a failure situation, the symmetric deflection of
the aileron can provide a pitching moment, so as to
guarantee certain pitch control capability. However,
when the rudder fails, the aircraft can fulfill yaw con-
trol only through rolling to generate a side force.
However, the effect is not very ideal since the sideslip
cannot be completely eliminated, and it is hard to co-
ordinate a roll, turn or to trim in a crosswind landing
situation, etc.
The reconfiguration of the combat flying wing is
achieved through functional redundancy design [10]. It
has redundant control surfaces around three axes of roll,
pitch and yaw. Such a redundancy mode guarantees the
flight control reconfiguration capability of the aircraft.
This is one of the significant reasons that modern ad-
vanced aircraft adopt the deployment scheme of con-
trol surfaces with multiple functional redundancy [10].
When a main control surface of an axis fails, depend-
ing on that redundant control surfaces supply certain
control of this axis, the flight safety of the aircraft can
be guaranteed. Note that all the control surfaces in-
stalled on the flying wing have multi-axis control cou-
pling effects. As a result, when these control surfaces
fail, they may cause some adverse influences that
should be compensated for by other control surfaces.
For example, when one side SDR of the typical combat
flying wing encounters a LIP failure, it is impossible to
be handled anymore. Then the other SDR and both
SSDs should undertake the full yaw control missions,
and the elevons need to be deflected to balance the
coupling moments in roll and pitch induced by the LIP
failure of this SDR.
Hence, the combat flying wing differs much from
the conventional aircraft in reconfiguration when con-
trol surface failures occur, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Contrast of reconfiguration after control sur-
face failures
Flying wing Conventional aircraft
Axis Reconfigurable Reconfigurable
Main Main
surface
surface (main
surface
surface (main
surface in failure) surface in failure)
Roll Aileron Elevator
Pitch
Elevons Elevons
Elevator Aileron
Yaw Drag rudders Drag rudders Rudder None
Properly speaking, the flying wing does not have
main control surfaces around the roll or pitch axis. A
random elevon can fulfill roll or pitch control. When
one elevon fails, others can still guarantee certain func-
tional redundancy. Similarly, its yaw axis has such a
characteristic too. Therefore, compared with the con-
ventional aircraft, the reconfiguration of the combat
flying wing is more flexible during control surface
No.4 WANG Lei et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25(2012) 493-499
failures, and it is not easy to be restricted by a limited
number of available control surfaces.
Through the changes about size of attainable mo-
ment subset with control surfaces before or after fail-
ures, the changes in the control capability of the air-
craft are described. Attainable moment subset [11] de-
fines the subset of three-axis attainable control moment
vector [Cl Cm Cn]T within position constraints
of control surfaces. The bigger the attainable moment
subset, the control capability of the aircraft is stronger.
Figure 3 shows the contrast of attainable moment sub-
sets of the typical combat flying wing in the case of the
right SSD without failures or with three typical fail-
ures.
As shown in Fig. 3, after the right SSD has three
typical failures, the attainable moment subsets all de-
crease to some degree, especially the yaw control ca-
pability loses a lot. Nevertheless, the aircraft still has
certain three-axis control capabilities.
· 495 ·
Fig. 3 Contrast of attainable moment subsets (right SSD in
failure).
It is worth noting that, after two or more critical
control surfaces fail, the flight safety problem of the
combat flying wing will be more severe. In some se-
vere cases, e.g. when both drag rudders of the same
side encounter the float failures, the yaw control capa-
bility of this side is nearly lost; it is very hard to guar-
antee the flight safety of the aircraft thereby.
Besides, different failure types or different faulty
control surfaces will bring different influences to the
flight control reconfiguration capability of the combat
flying wing, and then it will have different influences
on the perform of different flight missions too. Gener-
ally speaking, after a critical control surface of an axis
fails, it will affect flight missions that need compara-
tively high control power around this axis. Take the
yaw control surfaces for example, when one of them
fails, it will have strong influence on some maneuver
missions needing comparatively high yaw control
power, such as a coordinate roll, whereas it hardly af-
fects flight missions that are primary with pitch ma-
neuvers.
4. Principle and Implement of Flight Control
Reconfiguration
4.1. Flight control reconfiguration approaches
Nowadays, approaches in the area of the flight con-
trol reconfiguration include multiple mode switch [12],
pseudo inverse [13], eigenstructure assignment [14],
adaptive control [15], sliding mode control [16] and con-
trol allocation [17-18].
The combat flying wing has comparatively many
failure types. Although 11 kinds of failure modes are
designed in the “tailless advanced fighter aircraft” pro-
ject, they cannot cover all kinds of failure circum-
stances [19]. So multiple mode switch only suitable for
less failure types are not the best choice for the recon-
figurable flight control design of such aircraft types.
Utilization of pseudo inverse or eigenstructure assign-
ment in the reconfigurable flight control design of the
flying wing is restricted by its strong nonlinear feature.
Adaptive control cannot guarantee the stability of the
reconfigurable flight control system. Due to the con-
· 496 · WANG Lei et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25(2012) 493-499
sideration of too many failure types, sliding mode con-
trol is too conservative. Hence, the approaches men-
tioned above cannot provide good effects in the recon-
figurable flight control design of the flying wing.
For the flying wing, depending on the redundant ar-
rangement problem of control surfaces, a control allo-
cation block is already introduced into its dynamic
inversion flight control law. In order to realize the
flight control reconfiguration during control surface
failures, control allocation does not need to modify the
original flight control law of the combat flying wing,
whereas it just needs to appropriately adjust the con-
straint conditions of the control allocation block.
Therefore, this approach can easily and efficiently ful-
fill the reconfigurable flight control design for the fly-
ing wing in the presence of control surface failures. So
it is a comparative better approach suitable for solving
the reconfiguration problem of such aircraft types.
4.2. Implement of flight control reconfiguration ba-
sed on control allocation
This reconfigurable design approach uses the control
allocation block of the dynamic inversion flight control
system for the flying wing to fulfill flight control re-
configuration during control surface failures, combined
with failure detection [20] and management system.
Control law and control allocation block are designed
independently. According to the command of the air-
craft motion, the control law obtains the desired control
moments not affected by control surface failures, and
the control allocation block uses an approach planed
before to allocate the moments among the operable
control surfaces. As a result, such a reconfigurable de-
sign based on control allocation does not need to mod-
ify the structure and the parameters of the control law,
that it can be directly applied to the flight control sys-
tem design of the combat flying wing. Figure 4 shows
the basic principle of the reconfigurable flight control
design based on control allocation in the case of con-
trol surface failures.
Fig. 4 Reconfigurable flight control design principle based
on control allocation.
In Fig. 4, ILIP denotes the LIP deflection of a LIP
control surface, and k=ILIP means its deflection is
No.4
constrained to ILIP; kė0° means a LOE control sur-
face deflects back to 0°; gk(k)=0 denotes a float con-
trol surface does not generate any effective control
moments, and k=0° means its deflection is constrained
to 0°.
4.2.1. Principle of control allocation
The control allocation block uses certain optimiza-
tion calculations to allocate the three-axis control mo-
ments needed by the aircraft motions to relative control
surfaces [8].
Firstly, the control allocation block has position and
rate limits for control surfaces, and transforms the rate
limits to the position limits in every calculation cy-
cle [21]:
­°Gi min max(Gi (t  't )  Gi min 't , Gi min )
® (i 1, 2,", n)
°̄Gi max min(Gi (t  't )  Gi max 't , Gi max )
(1)
where t denotes the calculation time step, G i min and
G i max denote respectively the minimum and maximum
allowable deflections of the ith control surface at the
time instant of t, i(tt) denotes its deflection at the
last time instant, Gi min and Gi max denote respectively
the minimum and maximum deflection rates, and
G i min and G i max , the minimum and maximum deflec-
tion limitations respectively.
So, in the case of no failures, the constraint condi-
tions of the control allocation block are described as
n
¦ gi (Gi ) Md , Gi min gGi gGi max
(2)
i 1
where gi(i) denotes the control moment vector gener-
ated by the ith control surface, and Md denotes the de-
sired control moment vector, which consists of roll,
pitch and yaw control moments, non-dimensional as
[Cl Cm Cn]T. The first formula represents the
command that control surfaces fulfill the desired con-
trol moments. The second formula is the deflection
constraints of control surfaces.
Secondly, the control allocation block takes into ac-
count several kinds of optimization objectives, such as
minimal total deflection energy, radar cross section, etc.
This paper considers the optimization objective of the
maximal additional drag generated by control sur-
faces [8]:
n
min J ¦ 'CDi (Gi ) (3)
i 1
where CDi(i) denotes the additional drag produced by
the i th control surface.
Finally, subjected to the constraints (Eq. (2)), the de-
flection command for every control surface corre-
sponding with the optimization objective (Eq. (3)) is
solved by relative optimization algorithms [8].
No.4 WANG Lei et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25(2012) 493-499 · 497 ·

4.2.2. Adjust strategies of control reconfiguration After the LOE control surface deflects back to the
neutral position, it will not deflect anymore and always
It is assumed that the control surface failure detec- keeps at the deflection of 0°.
tion system can work well, which means that it can 3) Float failure
detect the work state of every control surface quickly When the kth control surface has a failure of float, it
and exactly. Assuming that the kth control surface fails will not generate any effective control moments any-
sometime, for the three typical failures of LIP, LOE more, so its control effectiveness is 0. Now, the float
and float, implements of the reconfigurable flight con- control surface should be isolated immediately so as
trol design based on control allocation are discussed not to take part in control allocation anymore.
below, i.e., the adjust strategy of constraint conditions In the control allocation block, the deflection posi-
(Eq. (2)) in the control allocation block after control tion of the float control surface is constrained to 0°.
surface failures. The constraint conditions are adjusted as
1) LIP failure
­k 1 n
°¦ gi (Gi )  0 u gk (G k )  ¦ gi (Gi )
When the kth control surface has a LIP failure, it Md
will keep at the same deflection of LIP, and it cannot °i 1 i k 1
respond to any deflection commands. Now, its deflec- ® (6)
tion rate is 0 (°)/s. °Gi min gGi gGi max (i z k )
°G 0q (i k )
In the control allocation block, the deflection posi- ¯ i
tion of this control surface is constrained to the LIP
deflection. The constraint conditions are adjusted as where 0×gk(k) denotes that the float control surface
does not generate effective control moments, the first
­n
°¦ gi (Gi ) Md
formula represents the command that control surfaces
°i 1 fulfill the desired control moments, the second one is
® (4) the deflection constraints of normal control surfaces,
°Gi min gGi gGi max (i z k ) and the last one represents that the deflection of the
°G I (i k )
¯ i LIP faulty control surface is constrained to 0°.
where the first formula represents the command that In fact, the deflection of the float control surface is
control surfaces fulfill the desired control moments, the not 0°. In the calculation and simulation, that the de-
second one is the deflection constraints of normal con- flection of this control surface is appointed 0° repre-
trol surfaces, and the last one represents that the de- sents that its control effectiveness is 0.
flection of the LIP control surface is constrained to Take the typical combat flying wing for example. At
I LIP. the time instant of tt, the deflections of its eight con-
The allocation result of the faulty control surface trol surfaces are 2°, 30°, 28°, 23°, 36°, 5°, 60° and
will always be the deflection of LIP. 60°. Assuming that the right SDR fails and is detected
2) LOE failure at the time instant of t, the non-dimensional desired
Control effectiveness of the kth control surface de- control moment vector is [0.01 0.01 0.01]T, and
creases, when it is in the failure of LOE. Though this the calculation step t is 0.02 s. Table 2 gives the allo-
control surface still has certain control power, based on cation results when the right SDR is in three typical
the conservative consideration of avoiding aggravating failure conditions.
its damage degree, it should deflect back fast to the
Table 2 Allocation results after the right SDR is sub-
neutral position. jected to three typical failures
In the control allocation block, the constraint condi-
tions are adjusted as Allocation results of control surfaces/(°)
Generate
Failure
­k1 n IE OE SDR SSD desired
°¦ gi (Gi )  (1 cLOE ) u gk (Gk )  ¦ gi (Gi ) Md
type
moments
Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right
°i 1 i k 1
°G gG gG (i z k) Normal 3.3 30 29.6 22.2 37.6 5.6 60 60
° i min i i max
®   LIP 3.3 30 29.6 22.3 37.3 5.0 60 60
° ­Gi (t ' t) Gi min' t Gi (t ' t) ! Gi max' t Yes
°G °®0q
LOE 3.4 30 29.6 22.6 36.4 3.4 60 60
Gi min' tgGi (t ' t)gGi max' t (i k)
°i ° Float 3.6 30 29.6 23.1 34.4 0 60 60
°¯ ¯Gi (t ' t) Gi max' t Gi (t ' t)  Gi min' t
(5) As can be seen in Table 2, during the three typical
where cLOE denotes the damage ratio of the LOE con- control surface failures of the right SDR, the flight
trol surface, the first formula represents the command control reconfiguration strategy comparatively better
that control surfaces fulfill the desired control moments, assure that the desired control moments are fulfilled
the second one is the deflection constraints of normal precisely. Besides, the allocation results of the faulty
control surfaces, and the third to the last formulae de- control surface correspond with the adjust strategies:
scribe the process that the faulty control surface de- allocated to 5° after a LIP failure, 3.4° after a LOE
flects back to 0°. failure, or 0° after a float failure.
· 498 · WANG Lei et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25(2012) 493-499 No.4

5. Simulation and Analysis

Compared with the LOE or float failure, the LIP

failure makes the three-axis control capabilities of the
flying wing decrease more, so the flights with such a
failure is more disgusting. This paper takes the LIP
failure for example to simulate the flight control recon-
figuration of the typical combat flying wing.
The numerical simulation is performed using the
six-degree-of-freedom nonlinear dynamics model of
such an aircraft. Its initial flight condition is a horizon-
tal flight at 4 000 m and 204 m/s. The attitude control
mission is that the aircraft maneuvers from the hori-
zontal flight attitude to the attack attitude of roll angle
I=25°, pitch angle =30° and yaw angle \=30°.
Besides, in order to improve the attack accuracy, the
optimization objective of maximal additional drag is
adopted for reducing the speed of the aircraft. It is as-
sumed that both SSDs lock at 0° since the time of 0 s.
The simulation time step is 0.02 s. Comparisons of
simulation results for the flight control system with or
with no reconfiguration are shown in Figs. 5-6.
Figure 5 shows that under the circumstances of such
an attitude control mission and SSDs failures, in the
case of no reconfiguration, the responses of three-axis
attitude angles diverge from the time of 4 s. However,
when the flight control system is capable of reconfig-
uring, the track characteristic is still comparatively

Fig. 6 Time histories of normal control surfaces.

good.
When the flight control system has no reconfigura-
tion, it continues to allocate control moments to both
the SSDs. But actually, they cannot provide necessary
moments anymore. Next to that, the errors of the flight
control system are accumulated, and then some control
surfaces gradually saturate at their position limits (e.g.
the left IE and the left OE, see Fig. 6). Finally, the con-
trol surfaces cannot provide sufficient control moments.
However, when the flight control system has recon-
figuration, it allocates desired control moments to the
six available control surfaces, therefore the errors of
moment allocations decrease. So if the remaining con-
trol power is adequate, the desired control moments
can be allocated comparatively accurately, also the
aircraft can comparatively better perform the flight
mission.

6. Conclusions

1) Having different reconfiguration characteristics as

compared with the conventional aircraft, the combat
flying wing is fitted with multiple control surfaces, and
has redundant control surfaces in three axes. Therefore,
it has basic conditions to reconfigure.
2) The flight control reconfiguration approach based
on control allocation does not need to modify the dy-
Fig. 5 Time histories of attitude angles. namic inversion flight control law of the aircraft, just
No.4 WANG Lei et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 25(2012) 493-499
via appropriately modifying the control allocation
block, and then it can comparatively effectively realize
the reconfigurable design during control surface fail-
ures. So it is suitable for the modular design of the
complicate flight control system for the flying wing.
3) Despite the presence of control surface failures,
the combat flying wing using this flight control recon-
figuration approach can still guarantee its flight safety,
and can comparatively better perform some flight mis-
sions with certain amplitude.
References
[1] Boskovic J D, Mehra R K. Robust fault-tolerant control
design for aircraft under state-dependent disturbances.
AIAA-2003-5490, 2003.
[2] Bowlus J A, Multhopp D, Banda S S. Challenges and
opportunities in tailless aircraft stability and control.
AIAA-1997-3830, 1997.
[3] Ma C, Li L, Wang L X. Design method of controllabil-
ity of low aspect-ratio flying wing configuration com-
bat aircraft. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica
2008; 29(4): 788-794. [in Chinese]
[4] Wang L, Wang L X, Jia Z R. Control features and ap-
plication characteristics of split drag rudder utilized by
flying wing. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica
2011; 32(8): 1392-1399. [in Chinese]
[5] Li L, Ma C, Wang L X. Stability features of low as-
pect-ratio flying wings. Acta Aeronautica et Astronau-
tica Sinica 2007; 28(6): 1312-1317. [in Chinese]
[6] Liu J R, Shen G Z. Attitude control based on inverse
dynamics and online parameter identification. Journal
of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2005; 31(2): 111-115. [in Chinese]
[7] Ito D, Georgie J, Valasek J, et al. Reentry vehicle flight
controls design guidelines: dynamic inversion. NASA/
TP-2002-210771, 2002.
[8] Wang L, Wang L X, Jia Z R. Control allocation method
for combat flying wing with multiple control surfaces.
Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica 2011; 32(4):
571-579. [in Chinese]
[9] Clark R N, Frank P M, Patton R J. Fault diagnosis in
dynamic systems: theory and application. New York:
Prentice Hall, 1989; 134.
[10] Yang W, Zhang L G, Yang C X, et al. Fault tolerant
flight control system. Xi’an: Northwestern Polytechni-
· 499 ·
cal University Press, 2007; 23-24. [in Chinese]
[11] Durham W C. Constrained control allocation. AIAA-
1992-4550, 1992.
[12] Xiao Q G, Zhang M, Hu S S. Adaptive reconfiguration
control for fighters based on weighted multi-
ple-model-structure. Transactions of Nanjing Univer-
sity of Aeronautics & Astronautics 2010; 27(3):
219-225. [in Chinese]
[13] Li W Q, Chen Z J. Control law reconfiguration under
control surface failure for nonlinear aircraft dynamic.
Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and As-
tronautics 2003; 29(5): 428-433. [in Chinese]
[14] Bodson M. A reconfigurable nonlinear autopilot.
AIAA-2002-4549, 2002.
[15] Brinker J, Wise K A. Flight testing of a reconfigurable
flight control law of the X-36 tailless fighter aircraft.
AIAA-2000-3941, 2000.
[16] Wells S R, Hess R A. MIMO sliding mode control for a
tailless flight aircraft, an alternative to reconfigurable
architectures. AIAA-2002-4650, 2002.
[17] Davidson J B, Lallman F J, Bundick W T. Integrated
reconfigurable control allocation. AIAA-2001-4083,
2001.
[18] Shertzer R H, Zimpfer D J, Brown P D. Control alloca-
tion for the next generation of entry vehicles. AIAA-
2002-4849, 2002.
[19] Boskovic J D, Mahra R K. A multiple model-based
reconfigurable flight control system design. Proceed-
ings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision & Con-
trol. 1998; 4503-4508.
[20] Huang C T, Wang L X. On-line fault diagnosis for con-
trol surfaces of multi-control effector flying wings.
Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica 2011; 32(1): 58-66.
[in Chinese]
[21] Durham W C, Leedy J Q. Real-time evaluation of con-
trol allocation with rate limiting. AIAA-1998-4460,
1998.
Biographies:
WANG Lei received B.S. degree from Beihang University in
2008, and is now a Ph.D. candidate. His main research inter-
ests are aircraft flight dynamics and control.
E-mail: wolsur@163.com
WANG Lixin is a professor in Beihang University. His main
research interests lie in aircraft design, flight dynamics and
flight control.
E-mail: bhu_wlx@tom.com