Design of a Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion Controller

for Trajectory Following and Maneuvering for

Fixed Wing Aircraft
Abhay A. Pashilkar, Shaik Ismail

Ramakalyan Ayyagari

Scientists, Flight Mechanics and Control Division

National Aerospace Laboratories
Bangalore 560017, India
[email protected], [email protected]

Prof., Dept. of Instrumentation and Control Engg.,

National Institute of Technology
Tiruchirappalli, India
[email protected]

Narasimhan Sundararajan
Prof. (retd), School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798
[email protected]
AbstractThis paper presents the design of a robust linear
controller that can be used for trajectory following and
maneuvering of fixed-wing aircraft using Nonlinear Dynamic
Inversion (NDI) principles. The design addresses control
coupling to exploit multiple redundant controls. It can also be
easily extended to state decoupling. The design procedure
exploits the nature of the equations of motion written in the wind
axis resulting in a cascaded linear controller structure with inner
and outer loops. A systematic methodology is evolved which uses
only the relevant stability and control derivatives in the control
synthesis, as opposed to the inversion of the complete nonlinear
equations used in conventional NDI designs. The tuning of the
control gains is based on the requirements of adequate trajectory
following and robustness to control surface failures. Finally, it is
shown how a series of controllers can be derived depending on
the sensor complement available on the aircraft. The proposed
approach is ideal for fixed-wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs).
KeywordsNonlinear Dynamic Inversion, , fixed-wing aircraft,
trajectory following, unmanned ariel vehicle

I.

INTRODUCTION

Flight control law design methods based on NDI have

evolved immensely due to advances in both hardware and
theoretical developments over the past decades [1-3, 6-8].
These developments have culminated in the flight testing of
NDI based control laws [9].
Early attempts to apply feedback linearization theory or
NDI techniques to flight control and trajectory following began
appearing in the mid and late 1980s [1-3]. Reference [1]
provides the basic theory for feedback linearization for the
aircraft equations of motion when cast in the block triangular
form. Lane and Stengel [2] explained that the aerodynamic
control surfaces must be treated primarily as moment

generators and their force contributions must be neglected.

Menon et al. [3], made the time-scale separation concept
explicit for trajectory following controllers. It is now known
that the NDI controller is not robust to parameter perturbations
as it is based on cancellation of nonlinearities in the plant
dynamics.
In the early 1990s the idea of integrator backstepping was
developed by Kokotovic and co-workers [4]. The block
triangular nature of the aircraft equations of motion allows us
to apply backstepping for flight control. Backstepping
improves the robustness of NDI significantly by introducing a
feedback element into the control structure. Due to this positive
attribute, backstepping was applied to the problem of flight
control [5-7]. In these papers we find a clear demarcation of the
states involved in the block triangular form of the equations of
motion along with the explicit intent to design the flight control
system based on multiple time scale separation principles.
Snell et al. [6] also showed how multiple redundant control
surfaces could be handled in the NDI framework using the
matrix pseudo-inverse. The use of stability axis rates as
opposed to body axis in the innermost loops as a natural choice
for flight control is clearly seen in references [7-8]. In addition,
the latter [8] explains the various methods of control allocation
available to the designer namely explicit ganging, pseudo
control, pseudo inverse and daisy chaining. This reference also
explains the process of designing feed forward loops to
improve the tracking performance of the dynamic inversion
controller. Harkegard [10] has shown that it is not necessary to
cancel all nonlinearities in the equations of dynamics. In fact,
in many cases it is possible to retain the useful nonlinearities
and thereby reduce control effort. Further in many cases a
sufficiently high linear negative feedback gain can make the
adaptive backstepping controller globally asymptotically
stable. Later Van Oort [11] extended the results to non-affine
systems. In passing we also mention a variation of NDI called

Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion [12] where the

angular acceleration is predicted from inertial measurements of
the angular rates and used in the innermost NDI loop.

actuators is set at 60 deg/s. The entire mathematical model of

the aircraft and controllers was implemented in Simulink/
Matlab.

Control surface allocation amongst the multiple redundant

controls available in modern fixed wing aircraft is a recurring
issue which has been addressed in [6, 8, 10, 13].

Standard aeronautical symbols have been used for all the

variables in this paper.

In this paper we apply the NDI concepts to develop a linear

controller. Use of the wind axis coordinates particularly the
wind axis roll and yaw rates simplify the controller sufficiently
permitting us to neglect the nonlinear terms while retaining
stability. We also demonstrate how to select the gains to be
used in the various loops whist maintaining dynamic separation
between the inner and outer loops. The authors believe that this
approach is sufficiently generic to allow for application to the
class of fixed wing aircraft.

B. Equations of Motion
Under the rigid body assumption, the equations of motion
have been taken from [16]. The roll rate and yaw rate have
been transformed into stability axes for the purpose of
developing the control laws based on dynamic inversion.

The linear controller is motivated by the fact that

sufficiently high linear gains can make the system globally
asymptotically stable even if we do not cancel some of the
nonlinearities [10]. Linear analysis tools are well developed
and traditional gain and phase margins can be easily provided
for certification [8]. With integrator backstepping, direct
method of changing the loop bandwidth is available to prevent
control surface / rate saturations [5, 8]. The added advantage of
using NDI concepts is the ability to add nonlinear correction
terms to improve the state decoupling (e.g., angular velocity
cross product in the moment equations to handle inertia
coupling). Finally, many UAVs fly at a fixed flight condition
and therefore a single point linear design is sufficient.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the
aircraft model and actuator models used in the paper. It also
contains the equations of motion based on which the NDI
control structure is evolved. The linear model data which forms
the basis for innermost loop design is also provided in this
Section. In Section III the NDI controller is developed loop by
loop proceeding from the innermost rotational equations loop
design to the outermost trajectory following loop. The sixdegree-of-freedom simulation results are presented in Section
IV.
II.

AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS

A. Aircraft Dynamics
The aircraft model used in this study is that of a high
performance fighter aircraft. Details of the model can be found
in [14]. For the purpose of this study, the elevator and aileron
control surface aerodynamic data has been split into two parts
corresponding to left and right surface using CFD
computations [15]. The aerodynamic model also contains a
ground effect model. The aircraft has two elevators (-25 to +25
deg deflections), which can be moved together or in differential
mode. It also has a pair of ailerons (-20 to +20 deg deflection),
and a rudder (-30 to +30 deg deflection). The engine model
(without dynamics) completes the six-degree of freedom
simulation model.
The aircraft has hydraulic actuators, which drive the
primary control surfaces that are modeled as first order lags
with a time constant of 50 msec. The rate limits for the

Rotational Equations:

0 r q p l a lT
p
q = I 1 r 0 p I q + m + m


a T
q p 0 r n n
r
a T

(1)

Wind Axis Equations:

 = p s cos + (q  )sin +  sin

 = q p s tan

 = rs +

(L mg cos cos )
mVcos

g
Q
sin cos
V
mV

(2)
(3)

(4)

Velocity Vector Equations:

(T cos cos D ) g sin

V =
m

(5)

T (sin cos cos sin sin ) Q sin

+
+
mV
mV
(L cos mg cos )
mV

(6)

L sin
T (cos sin cos + sin sin )
+
mV cos
mVcos
Q cos

mV cos

(7)

 =

 =

Navigational Equations:
x = V cos cos

(8)

y = V cos sin

(9)

h = V sin

(10)

where,
p s cos
r =
s sin

sin p
p
=T

cos r
r

is the body to stability axis transformation.

(11)

C. Linear Aircraft Model

A linear model of the aircraft is required for controller
design. The nonlinear model of the aircraft was trimmed at the
straight and level flight condition (Vel=82.66 m/s, and Alt=600
m).
The straight and level flight condition consists of the
following equilibrium values of the state variables:
u = 81.31m / s , v = 0m / s , w = 16.08m / s , p = 0rad ,
q = 0rad , r = 0rad , = 0rad , = 11.19 deg , = 0rad ,
h = 600m , and y = 0m .
Similarly, the corresponding values of the control
deflections are: e = 0.64 deg , a = 0 deg , r = 0 deg , and
thr = 0.22 .
In the design process in the following sections, we use the
linearized model of the high performance fighter aircraft, at the
straight level flight condition only for the innermost loop
(rotational equations of motion). The inner loop states are
x = [q p r ]T . The right hand sides of the equations of
rotational motion have a dependency on the rotational rates as
well as the angle of attack, sideslip and the control surface
deflections. The linearized equations can be written as:
x = Ay + Bu

(12)

where,
y = [ q p r ]T

u = e left e right a left a right r

(13)

]T

(14)

The angles and rates in the state equations are in radians

and rad/s respectively, while the control surface deflections are
in degrees. The values for the matrices A and B are as follows:

u = pitch roll yaw T

(17)
to exercise decoupled control of each of the three rotational
axes. We also transform the roll and yaw rates into the
stability axes. Thus, the transformed state vector x , y are
given by:
x = [q ps rs ]T

(18)

y = [ q ps rs ]T

(19)

The transformation matrices between the original variables

x, y, u and their corresponding transformed quantities
x , y , u are respectively given by:
01 2
1
x=
1 x = T1 x
0
21 T

(20)

I
y = 33
0 2 3

(21)

03 2
y = T2 y
T 1

1 - K aei
1 K
aei

u= 0
-1

0
1

0 K ari

- K rei
K rei
0 u = Su

0
1

(22)

In the above equations for transformation of the control

matrix, the gain Kari is the well known ailerons to rudder
interconnect. This is routinely used in traditional flight control
design for suppressing the development of sideslip due to
deflection of aileron by application of proportional rudder.

0.0029
0.8145 0.6491 0.0066 0

A= 0
0.0003 14.1548 1.7533 0.8792
0
0.0025
1.8847 0.0482 0.2424

(15)

0.0299 0.0299 0.0005 0.0005 0

B = 0.0549 0.0549 0.0842 0.0842 0.0340

0.0074 0.0074 0.0007 0.0007 0.0169

We have introduced two additional gains Kaei and Krei

which are intended to exploit the capability of the elevators in
differential mode to generate additional rolling moments and
yawing moments respectively. While the former gain enables
the controller to handle a new type of failure (namely failure of
both ailerons), the latter gain allows the controller to handle a
larger range of rudder failures.

(16)

With the above transformations, the linearized equations

for rotational dynamics can be written as:

NONLINEAR DYNAMIC INVERSION CONTROLLER

DESIGN
The design begins by considering the three rotational axes
for feedback control.
III.

A. Inner Loop Control Decoupling

We proceed to decouple the control surfaces which appear
in the rotational equations by applying dynamic inversion to
the linearized equations of motion.
It is noted that we have expressed the rotational dynamics
as a function of the states as well as individual control surface
deflections. We propose three pseudo controls

T1x = T2 y + BSu

(23)

These equations can be rearranged as:

(BS )+ T1x = (BS )+ T2 y + u

(24)

where (BS )+ is the matrix pseudo-inverse of the matrix

product BS.
The gains Kari, Kaei and Krei in the matrix S are chosen such

that (BS )+ T1 is a diagonal matrix resulting in the control

decoupling of the pitch, roll and yaw axes. Application of this
to our aircraft model with Kari=1.66deg/deg, Kaei=0.75deg/deg

16.7 q = 13.6 + 10.9q + pitch

(25)

5 p s = 67.9 + 7.7 ps 5.8rs + roll

(26)

46.8rs = 222 10.3 ps + 22.1rs + yaw

(27)

A final point to be noted before proceeding to the design of

the other loops is that the angle of attack figures in the
transformation of the body axis roll and yaw rates to the
stability axis roll and yaw rates. If the measured value of the
angle of attack is used for this transformation, this creates a
coupling between the longitudinal and lateral-directional axes.
This is avoided by using the nominal 1-g angle of attack for
this transformation.

Each of the above equations states the dependence of the

rotational rate on the relevant aircraft states and the control
input. The states and are in radians, while the rates are in
rad/sec. Dynamic inversion control is designed to create a first
order response in the variable being controlled. For example,
we choose the pitch command to be:

B. Outer Loop Control Design (, , )

In the first approximation, we assume that the flight path
angle (), angle about velocity vector () and sideslip () are
small, lift balances the weight and the side force Q is
negligible. This results in the following dynamics:

pitch = +13.6 10.9q + K q (qcmd q)

 q

(34)

 ps

(35)

and Krei=0.27deg/deg results in the following decoupled

equations:

(28)

where it is noted that qcmd is the commanded pitch rate input. It

is noted that this control law amounts to both control
decoupling as well as state decoupling in the longitudinal
equations.
Substituting this control law into the first equation (25)
for pitch acceleration results in the desired first order response
of the aircraft pitch rate to a step input pitch rate command:

q =

Kq
16.7

(qcmd q)

(29)

By choosing a value of Kq=-105deg/rad/sec for the

proportional pitch rate feedback gain, the effective time
constant of the first order response works out to be:

16.7
= 0.16 s
105

(30)

The value of Kq is chosen to ensure that the actuators do

not rate limit during the landing manoeuvre. The pitch control
law equation can be further simplified by noting that the Kq
gain is very high compared to the first two terms. The
simplification amounts to only control decoupling, while state
coupling in longitudinal axis from the lateral-directional axes
is seen to be negligible. Therefore, we finally have:

pitch K q (qcmd q)

(31)

In a similar manner, we have the roll and yaw axis inner

loop control laws as:

roll K ps ( p scmd p s )

(32)

yaw K rs (rscmd rs )

(33)

It is noted that although the coefficients multiplying in

the roll and yaw equations are high, when we consider small
values for sideslip and convert to degrees, these terms can be
neglected in the dynamics. The value of the roll and yaw gains
is Kps=-25deg/rad/s and Krs=-180deg/rad/s resulting in the first
order response time constants of 0.2s and 0.26s respectively.

 rs +

(36)

The outer loop control law based on the above

equations is:
q cmd = K alpha ( cmd )

(37)

p scmd = K mu ( cmd )

(38)

rcmd = K beta ( cmd ) +

(39)

The gains Kalpha=2.5rad/s/rad, Kmu=3.0rad/s/rad and

Kbeta=1.0rad/s/rad are used resulting in the first order time
constants 0.4s, 0.33s and 1.0s respectively. It is noted that the
outer loop time constants are at least 2.5 times of the inner
loop time constants ensuring a significant dynamic separation
between the cascaded loops.
C. Tracking Loop Control Design (V, , )
Similarly if we assume that the angles ,, , are small
and the sideforce Q is negligible (i.e., turns are coordinated),
in the first approximation the velocity vector equations are:
(T D ) g b g
V
(40)
vthr thr
m

( L mg ) q SC L

( trim )
mV
mV

(41)

L g

mV V

(42)

In the above equations bvthr is the gradient of aircraft

acceleration equation with respect to throttle deflection. This
term typically appears in the B matrix.

bvthr =

V
thr

(43)

The CL is the gradient of the lift curve slope and trim is

the trim angle of attack. The dynamic pressure is represented
by q . Equation (41) is conveying that for a fixed wing
aircraft the curvature of the flight path in the vertical plane is
achieved by increasing the lift force through changing the
angle-of-attack. Similarly, equation (42) indicates that the
flight path curvature in the horizontal plane is achieved by
tilting the lift vector in the direction of the turn. The control
law for tracking loop is then developed based on the above
equations:

thr =
cmd

1
bvthr

[K vel (Vcmd V ) + g ]

mV
=
K gam ( cmd ) + trim
q SC L

cmd =

V
K chi ( cmd )
g

(44)
(45)
(46)

The gains are Kvel = 0.5s-1, Kgam = 1.0rad/sec/rad and Kchi =

0.5s-1. These values result in first order time constants of 2s,
1s and 2s respectively for these loops. The time constants of
the flight path and the heading angle loops is at least 2.5 times
those of the angle of attack and bank angle loops thereby
ensuring dynamic separation.

The longitudinal and lateral-directional closed loop scheme

is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. It is noted that we have added
Washout filters (denoted as WO) and PID blocks (denoted as
PID) in these figures. The airspeed loop also has an
additional lead-lag compensator to improve the speed of
response without compromising the overshoot.
E. Alternate Feedback Signals
The use of angle of attack and sideslip as feedback signals
have arisen in the NDI controller due to their appearance as
states in the equations of motion. These signals require a
calibrated and fail safe airdata system. However, it is possible
to replace both of these signals by the nearly equivalent
signals of normal acceleration and lateral acceleration
respectively.
nz = n

(51)

n y = n

(52)

One may also not close the outermost sideslip feedback

loop in Fig. 3, thereby ending up with the more traditional
controller in the lateral-directional axis [8, 17].
The structure we have derived also allows for an angle-ofattack or normal acceleration demand system to be
implemented.
IV.

SIMULATION RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

y V ( cmd )

(47)

h V

(48)

To demonstrate the ability of the NDI based controller to

follow a typical trajectory: namely an autolanding scenario
consisting of level flight segments, level turns, descent profiles
and the flare maneuver (Fig. 1). The six-degree-of-freedom
simulation result is shown in Figs. 4-6. Longitudinal variables
are shown in Fig. 4, while lateral-directional variables are seen
in Fig. 5. Finally, in Fig. 6 we see that the actuator rates are
well within the maximum values.

The control law for position loop is then developed based

on the above equations:

In conclusion we have demonstrated a control system

design approach based on NDI with the following benefits:

D. Position Loop Control Design (y, h)

The equations for position in the first approximation are:

( cmd ) =

cmd

1
K y ( ycmd y )
V

1
= K h (hcmd h)
V

(49)

(50)

The gains are Ky = 0.5rad/s and Kh = 0.55rad/s. These

values result in first order time constants of 2sec and 1.82sec
respectively for these loops. The time constants of the cross
track and the altitude loops is at least 1.82 times those of the
bank angle and flight path angle loops thereby ensuring
dynamic separation.
It is desirable to enhance the ramp following of the control
system to altitude and track angle. This is achieved by adding
a feedforward signal proportional to the derivative of the
altitude and track angle commands respectively. The
derivative is constructed using a washout filter.

Control and state decoupling of the innermost loops is

achieved
The procedure for obtaining outer loop design gains is
established without compromising the separation of
time scales required for the cascaded controller
Trajectory following design is achieved for the class
of fixed wing aircraft including unmanned aerial
vehicles
Alternate control structures which do not depend on
airdata signals like angle of attack and sideslip can be
derived from this approach. In this manner the NDI
controller can be used for maneuvering
REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

G. Meyer, R. Su, and L. R. Hunt, Applications of nonlinear

transformations to automatic flight control, Automatica, vol. 20, no. 1,
1984, pp. 103-107.
S. H. Lane, and R. F. Stengel, Flight control design using nonlinear
inverse dynamics, Automatica, vol. 24, no. 4, 1988, pp. 471-483.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

P. K. A. Menon, M. E. Badgett, R. A. Walker, and E. L. Duke,

Nonlinear flight test trajectory controllers for aircraft, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 10., No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp.
67-72.
I. Kanellakopoulos, P. V. Kokotovic, and A. S. Morse, A toolkit for
nonlinear feedback design, Systems & Control Letters, 18(2):83-92,
Feb. 1992.
D. J. Bugajski, and D. F. Enns, "Nonlinear control law with application
to high angle of attack", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 15, No. 3, May-June 1992, pp. 761-767.
S. A. Snell, D. F. Enns, and W. L. Garrard Jr., Nonlinear inversion
flight control for a supermaneuverable aircraft, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 4, July-Aug. 1992, pp. 976-984.
J. S. Brinker, and K. Wise, Stability and flying qualities robustness of a
dynamic inversion aircraft control law, Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 1270-1277.
W. C. Reigelsperger, S. S. Banda, and D. P. Lemaster, Application of
multivariable control theory to aircraft control laws. Final ReportMultivarible control design guidelines, WL-TR-96-3099, Flight
Dynamics Directorate, Wright Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH,
May 1996.
C. J. Miller, Nonlinear dynamic inversion baseline control law: Flighttest results for the full-scale advanced systems testbed F/A-18 airplane,
AIAA Paper no. 2011-6468, AIAA Guidance, Navigaion, and Control
Conference, Portland Oregon, 2011.

Z (Km)

[3]

[10] O. Harkegard, Backstepping and control allocation with applications to

flight control, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering
Linkoping, Sweden: Linkoping University, 2003.
[11] E. R. Van Oort, Adaptive backstepping control and safety analysis for
modern fighter aircraft, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Aerospace
Engineering TU Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology,
2011.
[12] S. Sieberling, Q. P. Chu, and J. A. Mulder, Robust flight control using
incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion and angular acceleration
prediction, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 33, No.
6, Nov.-Dec. 2010, pp. 1732-1742.
[13] M. W. Oppenheimer, D. B. Doman, and M. A. Bolender, Control
allocation for over-actuated systems, in Proceedings of the 14th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED 06),pp. 16, June 2006.
[14] L. T. Nguyen, M. E. Ogburn, W. P. Gilbert, K. S. Kibler, P. W. Brown,
and P. L. Deal, Simulator study of stall/post-stall characteristics of a
fighter airplane with relaxed longitudinal static stability, NASA TP1538, 1979.
[15] S. G. Teo, Autolanding system study: Aerodynamic data of an aircraft
with independent control surfaces by CFD, Technical Report of DSO
National Lab., 2003.
[16] A. Miele, Flight Mechanics Volume 1: Theory of Flight Paths, AddisonWesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1962.
[17] J. H. Blakelock, Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles, John Wiley
& Sons Inc., 1991.

0.5
0
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
X (Km)

-10

1
0

Fig. 1 Autolanding trajectory

Fig. 2 Longitudinal Axis NDI Controller

2
Y (Km)

50

100

10

150

100

50

100

-10

150

50

100

50

100

80

70

150

50

100

150

2
az (g's)

20
0
-20
0

50
100
Time (sec)

150

200
0
0

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

50
100
Time (sec)

20

60
40
20
0
0.4

400

150
Throttle (percent)

-20

40

90

1 2 3 4 5

600

150

VT (m/s)

el (deg)

50

Thrust (KN)

20

er (deg)

10

(deg)

(deg)

20

-20

ax (g's)

-10

20 1 2 3 4 5 6

(deg)

Q (deg/s)

10 1 2 3 4 5 6

Altitude (Km)

Fig. 3 Lateral-Directional Axis NDI Controller

50
100
Time (sec)

150

0.2

Fig. 4 Longitudinal response during trajectory following

150

50

100

0
-10

150

50

100

-500

150

r (deg)

al (deg)

50

100

ar (deg)

d/dt (deg/s)
0

50
100
Time (sec)

ay (g's)
0

150

50

100

150

50

100

50

100

150

0
-0.5

150

0
-20

-5
-10

0.5

20

150

20

-20

-0.5

150

20

-20

100

X (Km)

0
-50

50

500

, (deg)

(deg)

50

50

100

150

-5

0
5
Y (Km)

10

10
Z (Km)

-50

0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6

(deg)

10 1 2 3 4 5 6

R (deg/s)

P (deg/s)

50 1 2 3 4 5 6

0
-10

50
100
Time (sec)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
20

0
X (Km) -20 -5

150

0
Y (Km)

Fig. 5 Lateral-directional response during trajectory following

0
-50
-100

50

100

-50

-50

50

100

0
-50
-100

150

100

50

50

0
-50
0

800

800

600

600

600

200
0
-1

0
ug (m/s)

400
200
0
-1

0
vg (m/s)

50

100

150

50
100
150
Time (sec)

-50

800

400

-100

50
100
150
Time (sec)

50

100

-100

50
100
150
Time (sec)

Altitude (m)

Altitude (m)

dal/dt (deg/s)

Altitude (m)

del/dt (deg/s)

50

-100

150

100

-100

50

dt/dt (%/s)

50

100 1 2 3 4 5 6

dr /dt (deg/s)

100 1 2 3 4 5 6

dar/dt (deg/s)

der/dt (deg/s)

100 1 2 3 4 5 6

400
200
0
-1

0
wg (m/s)

Fig. 6 Actuator rates as function of time and wind profile as function of altitude