See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351795014

Introduction to Flight Testing

Book · August 2021

DOI: 10.1002/9781118949818

CITATIONS READS
7 5,880

2 authors, including:

Tianshu Liu
Western Michigan University
217 PUBLICATIONS 5,828 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tianshu Liu on 10 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 vii

Contents

AL
About the Authors xiii
Series Preface xv

RI
Preface xvii
Acknowledgements xxi

TE
About the Companion Website xxiii MA
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Case Study: Supersonic Flight in the Bell XS-1 3
1.2 Types of Flight Testing 9
1.2.1 Scientific Research 9
ED

1.2.2 Experimental Flight Test 12

1.2.3 Developmental Test and Evaluation 14
1.2.4 Operational Test and Evaluation 14
HT

1.2.5 Airworthiness Certification 15

1.3 Objectives and Organization of this Book 17
IG

Nomenclature 18
Acronyms and Abbreviations 19
References 19
YR

2 The Flight Environment: Standard Atmosphere 22

P

2.1 Earth’s Atmosphere 23

2.2 Standard Atmosphere Model 24
CO

2.2.1 Hydrostatics 24
2.2.2 Gravitational Acceleration and Altitude Definitions 25
2.2.3 Temperature 26
2.2.4 Viscosity 27
2.2.5 Pressure and Density 28
2.2.6 Operationalizing the Standard Atmosphere 29
2.2.7 Comparison with Experimental Data 30
2.3 Altitudes Used in Aviation 32
Nomenclature 34
Subscripts 34
Acronyms and Abbreviations 35
References 35
viii Contents

3 Aircraft and Flight Test Instrumentation 36

3.1 Traditional Cockpit Instruments 36
3.1.1 Gyroscopic-Based Instruments 38
3.1.2 Pressure-Based Instruments 38
3.1.3 Outside Air Temperature 41
3.1.4 Other Instrumentation 42
3.2 Glass Cockpit Instruments 42
3.3 Flight Test Instrumentation 45
3.3.1 Global Navigation Satellite System 46
3.3.2 Accelerometers 49
3.3.3 Gyroscopes 49
3.3.4 Magnetometers 50
3.3.5 Barometer 51
3.3.6 Fusion of Sensor Data Streams 51
3.4 Summary 52
Nomenclature 54
Subscripts 54
Acronyms and Abbreviations 54
References 55

4 Data Acquisition and Analysis 56

4.1 Temporal and Spectral Analysis 56
4.2 Filtering 61
4.3 Digital Sampling: Bit Depth Resolution and Sample Rate 63
4.4 Aliasing 66
4.5 Flight Testing Example 69
4.6 Summary 69
Nomenclature 70
Subscripts 70
Acronyms and Abbreviations 70
References 71

5 Uncertainty Analysis 72
5.1 Error Theory 73
5.1.1 Types of Errors 73
5.1.2 Statistics of Random Error 76
5.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Propagation 77
5.1.4 Overall Uncertainty Estimate 79
5.1.5 Chauvenet’s Criterion for Outliers 79
5.1.6 Monte Carlo Simulation 80
5.2 Basic Error Sources in Flight Testing 81
5.2.1 Uncertainty of Flight Test Instrumentation 81
5.2.2 Example: Uncertainty in Density (Traditional Approach) 85
5.2.3 Example: Uncertainty in True Airspeed (Monte Carlo Approach) 86
Nomenclature 88
Subscripts 89
Acronyms and Abbreviations 89
References 89
 Contents ix

6 Flight Test Planning 90

6.1 Flight Test Process 90
6.2 Risk Management 93
6.3 Case Study: Accept No Unnecessary Risk 96
6.4 Individual Flight Planning 97
6.4.1 Flight Area and Airspace 98
6.4.2 Weather and NOTAMs 99
6.4.3 Weight and Balance 100
6.4.4 Airplane Pre-Flight 103
6.5 Conclusion 105
Nomenclature 105
Acronyms and Abbreviations 105
References 105

7 Drag Polar Measurement in Level Flight 107

7.1 Theory 107
7.1.1 Drag Polar and Power Required for Level Flight 107
7.1.2 The PIW–VIW Method 112
7.1.3 Internal Combustion Engine Performance 114
7.1.4 Propeller Performance 119
7.2 Flight Testing Procedures 124
7.3 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 125
Nomenclature 127
Acronyms and Abbreviations 129
References 129

8 Airspeed Calibration 132

8.1 Theory 132
8.1.1 True Airspeed 134
8.1.2 Equivalent Airspeed 134
8.1.3 Calibrated Airspeed 135
8.1.4 Indicated Airspeed 137
8.1.5 Summary 137
8.2 Measurement Errors 138
8.2.1 Instrument Error 138
8.2.2 System Lag 138
8.2.3 Position Error 139
8.3 Airspeed Calibration Methods 142
8.3.1 Boom-Mounted Probes 143
8.3.2 Trailing Devices and Pacer Aircraft 143
8.3.3 Ground-Based Methods 145
8.3.4 Global Positioning System Method 145
8.4 Flight Testing Procedures 147
8.5 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 148
Nomenclature 150
Subscripts 151
Acronyms and Abbreviations 151
References 151
x Contents

9 Climb Performance and Level Acceleration to Measure Excess Power 153

9.1 Theory 153
9.1.1 Steady Climbs 154
9.1.2 Energy Methods 160
9.2 Flight Testing Procedures 165
9.2.1 Direct Measurement of Rate of Climb 165
9.2.2 Measurement of Level Acceleration 166
9.3 Data Analysis 167
9.4 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 168
Nomenclature 172
Subscripts 173
Acronyms and Abbreviations 173
References 174

10 Glide Speed and Distance 175

10.1 Theory 176
10.1.1 Drag Polar 176
10.1.2 Gliding Flight 179
10.1.3 Glide Hodograph 180
10.1.4 Best Glide Condition 181
10.2 Flight Testing Procedures 183
10.3 Data Analysis 185
10.4 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 186
Nomenclature 188
Subscripts 188
Acronyms and Abbreviations 189
References 189

11 Takeoff and Landing 190

11.1 Theory 190
11.1.1 Takeoff Ground Roll 191
11.1.2 Landing Ground Roll 193
11.1.3 Rotation Distance 194
11.1.4 Transition Distance 194
11.1.5 Climb Distance 195
11.1.6 Total Takeoff and Landing Distances 195
11.1.7 Simple Estimations 195
11.2 Measurement Methods 196
11.3 Flight Testing Procedures 197
11.3.1 Standard Flight Procedures 197
11.3.2 Flight Test Procedures 199
11.3.3 Data Acquisition 200
11.3.4 Data Analysis 200
11.4 Flight Test Example: Cessna R182 201
Nomenclature 202
Subscripts 203
Acronyms and Abbreviations 204
References 204
 Contents xi

12 Stall Speed 205

12.1 Theory 206
12.1.1 Viscous Boundary Layers 207
12.1.2 Flow Separation 208
12.1.3 Two-Dimensional Stall Characteristics 209
12.1.4 Three-Dimensional Stall Characteristics 211
12.1.5 Stall Control 211
12.1.6 Stall Prediction 213
12.2 Flight Testing Procedures 214
12.2.1 Flight Characteristics 214
12.2.2 Data Acquisition 216
12.3 Data Analysis 217
12.4 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 219
Nomenclature 221
Subscripts 222
Acronyms and Abbreviations 222
References 222

13 Turning Flight 224

13.1 Theory 224
13.2 Flight Testing Procedures 232
13.2.1 Airworthiness Certification 232
13.2.2 Educational Flight Testing 233
13.2.3 Piloting 233
13.2.4 Instrumentation and Data Recording 234
13.3 Flight Test Example: Diamond DA40 235
Nomenclature 236
Subscripts 237
Acronyms and Abbreviations 237
References 237

14 Longitudinal Stability 238

14.1 Static Longitudinal Stability 238
14.1.1 Theory 238
14.1.2 Trim Condition 242
14.1.3 Flight Testing Procedures 244
14.1.4 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 245
14.2 Dynamic Longitudinal Stability 246
14.2.1 Theory 246
14.2.2 Flight Testing Procedures 254
14.2.3 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 255
Nomenclature 257
Subscripts 259
Acronyms and Abbreviations 259
References 259

15 Lateral-Directional Stability 261

15.1 Static Lateral-Directional Stability 261
15.1.1 Theory 261
xii Contents

15.1.2 Directional Stability 264

15.1.3 Lateral Stability 265
15.1.4 Flight Testing Procedures 266
15.1.5 Flight Testing Example: Cirrus SR20 267
15.2 Dynamic Lateral-Directional Stability 269
15.2.1 Theory 269
15.2.2 Flight Testing Procedures 272
15.2.3 Flight Test Example: Cirrus SR20 272
Nomenclature 274
Acronyms and Abbreviations 275
References 275

16 UAV Flight Testing 277

16.1 Overview of Unmanned Aircraft 277
16.2 UAV Design Principles and Features 279
16.2.1 Types of Airframes 280
16.2.2 UAV System Architecture 281
16.2.3 Electric Propulsion 285
16.2.4 Command and Control (C2) Link 286
16.2.5 Autonomy 287
16.3 Flight Regulations 288
16.4 Flight Testing Principles 288
16.4.1 Air Data Instrumentation 289
16.4.2 UAV Flight Test Planning 290
16.4.3 Piloting for UAV Flight Testing 290
16.5 Flight Testing Examples with the Peregrine UAS 291
16.5.1 Overview of the Peregrine UAS 291
16.5.2 Propulsion System Characterization 293
16.5.3 Specific Excess Power: Level Acceleration and Rate of Climb 294
16.5.4 Glide Flight Tests 296
16.6 Flight Testing Examples with the Avanti UAS 299
16.6.1 Overview of the Avanti UAS 299
16.6.2 Coast-Down Testing for the Drag Polar 301
16.6.3 Radio Range Testing 303
16.6.4 Assessment of Autonomous System Performance 305
16.7 Conclusion 305
Nomenclature 307
Acronyms and Abbreviations 307
References 308

Appendix A Standard Atmosphere Tables 310

Appendix B Useful Constants and Unit Conversion Factors 313

Reference 317

Appendix C Stability and Control Derivatives for a Notional GA Aircraft 318

Reference 319

Index 321
 1

Introduction

AL
Flight testing is seemingly the stuff of legends, with tales of derring-do and bravery, spearheaded
by great pilots such as Yeager, Armstrong, Glenn, and others. But what exactly is flight testing all

RI
about? What is being tested, and why? What’s the difference between a test pilot and a flight test
engineer? Is flight testing an inherently dangerous or risky activity?

TE
With this book, we hope to show that flight testing is both exciting and accessible – we hope
to make flight testing understandable and achievable by the typical undergraduate aerospace
MA
engineering student. The basic principles of flight testing can be explored in any aircraft, all the
while remaining safely well within the standard operating envelope of an aircraft. This book
will introduce students to the principles that experienced flight test engineers work with as they
evaluate new aircraft systems.
ED

Flight testing is all about determining or verifying the performance and handling qualities of an
aircraft. These flight characteristics may be predicted in the design and development stages of a new
aircraft program, but we never really know the exact capabilities until the full system is flown and
HT

tested. Most aircraft flight testing programs are focused on airworthiness certification, which is the
rigorous demonstration of all facets of the flight vehicle’s performance and handling characteristics
in order to ensure safety of flight.
IG

We also wish to highlight that most flight testing should not incur the levels of risk and danger
that we associate with the great test pilots of the 20th century. Their bravery was indeed laudable,
YR

since they ventured into flight that no human had done before, such as breaking the “sound
barrier” or being the first person to walk on the Moon. But, if done correctly, flight testing should
P

be a methodical process where risks are managed at an acceptable level, where human life
and property are not exposed to undue risk. Even more hazardous flight testing such as flutter
CO

boundary determination or spin recovery should be done in a methodical, well-controlled manner

that mitigates risk. In fact, most flight testing, at least to an experienced professional, can be
almost mundane (Corda 2017).
Nor is flight testing an individualistic activity where an intrepid pilot relies solely on their
superlative piloting skills to push the aircraft to its limits, as suggested by the caricature in
Figure 1.1. Quite the contrary, flight testing is a team effort with many individuals carefully
contributing to the overall success of a flight testing program (see Figure 1.2). There is, of course,
a pilot involved whose job it is to fly the aircraft as precisely and accurately as possible to put the
aircraft through the necessary maneuvers to extract the needed performance or handling data.
If an aircraft can carry more than just the pilot, then there is almost always a flight test engineer
on board. The flight test engineer is responsible for preparing the plan for the flight test and for
acquiring the data in flight while the pilot puts the aircraft through the required maneuvers.
Beyond the role of the flight test engineer, there are many others involved – including those who
monitor systems and downlinked data on the ground, data analysts who post-process and interpret
Introduction to Flight Testing, First Edition. James W. Gregory and Tianshu Liu.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Companion website: https://www.wiley.com/go/flighttesting
2 1 Introduction

Figure 1.1 The caricature view of flight test is of an individualistic, cowboy-like, rugged test pilot who
single-handedly defies danger. Here, Joe Walker playfully boards the Bell X-1A in a moment of levity.
Source: NASA.

Figure 1.2 A more realistic view of the people behind flight testing – a team effort is required to promote
safety and professionalism of flight. Depicted here is the team of NACA scientists and engineers who
supported the XS-1 flight test program. Source: NASA.
 1.1 Case Study: Supersonic Flight in the Bell XS-1 3

the data after the test is complete, and program managers who set the strategic direction for the
program and make budgetary decisions.
Flight testing is a critical endeavor in the overall design cycle of a new aircraft system. The main
objective is to prove out the assumptions that are inherent to every design process and to discover
any hidden anomalies in the performance of the aircraft system. Aircraft design typically proceeds
by drawing upon historical data to estimate the performance of a new aircraft concept, but there
is always uncertainty in those design estimates. The initial stages of design have very crude esti-
mates made for a wide range of parameters and theories applied to the design. Over time, the design
team reduces the uncertainty in the design by refining the analysis with improved design tools and
higher-fidelity (more expensive!) analysis, wind tunnel testing, and ground testing of functional
systems and even the entire aircraft. But, then the moment of truth always comes, where it is time
for first flight of the aircraft. It is at this point that the flight test team documents the true perfor-
mance of the airplane. If differences arise between actual and predicted performance, minor tweaks
to the design may be needed (e.g., the addition of vortex generators on the wings). Also, the insight
gleaned from flight testing is documented and fed back into the design process for future aircraft.
This chapter will provide a brief overview of the flight testing endeavor through a historical
anecdote that illustrates the key outcomes of flight testing, how flight testing is actually done,
and the roles of all involved. Following this, we’ll take a look at the various kinds of flight testing
that are done, with a particular emphasis on airworthiness certification of an aircraft, which is the
main objective of many flight testing programs. We’ll then conclude this chapter with an overview
of the rest of the book, including our objectives in writing this book and what we hope the reader
will glean from this text.

1.1 Case Study: Supersonic Flight in the Bell XS-1

A great way to learn about the essential elements of a successful flight test program is to look at a
historical case study. We’ll consider the push by the Army Air Forces (AAF) in 1947 to fly an aircraft
faster than the speed of sound. Along the way, we’ll pick up some insight into how flight testing is
done and some of the values and principles of the flight test community.
At the time, many scientists and engineers did not think that supersonic flight could be achieved.
They observed significant increases in drag as the flight speed increased. On top of that, there were
significant loss-of-control incidents where pilots found that their aircraft could not be pulled out of
a high-speed dive. These highly publicized incidents led some to conclude that the so-called “sound
barrier” could not be broken. We now know, however, that this barrier only amounted to a lack of
insight into the physics of shock–boundary layer interaction, shock-induced separation, and the
transonic drag rise, along with a lack of high-thrust propulsion sources to power through the high
drag. Scientific advancements in theoretical analysis, experimental testing, and flight testing, along
with engineering advancements in propulsion and airframe design, ultimately opened the door to
supersonic flight.
In a program kept out of public sight, the U.S. Army Air Forces, the National Advisory Commit-
tee for Aeronautics (NACA, the predecessor to NASA), and the Bell aircraft company collaborated
on a program to develop the Bell XS-1 with the specific intent of “breaking the sound barrier”
to supersonic flight. (Note that the “S” in XS-1 stands for “supersonic”; this letter was dropped
early in the flight testing program, leaving us with the commonly known X-1 notation.) The
XS-1 (see Figure 1.3) was a fixed-wing aircraft with a gross weight of 12,250 lb, measured 30-ft
4 1 Introduction

Figure 1.3 Three-view drawing of the Bell XS-1. Source: NASA, X-1/XS-1 3-View line art. Available at
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Graphics/X-1/index.html.

11-in. long, had a straight (unswept) wing with an aspect ratio of 6.0 and a span of 28 ft, and an
all-moving horizontal tail (a detail that we’ll soon see was important!). The XS-1 was powered by
a four-chamber liquid-fueled rocket engine producing 6000 lb of thrust. The overarching narrative
of the program is well documented in numerous historical and popular sources (e.g., see Young
1997; Gorn 2001; Peebles 2014; Hallion 1972; Hallion and Gorn 2003; or Wolfe 1979), but we’ll pick
up the story in the latter stages of the flight test program at Muroc Army Airfield, positioned on
the expansive Rogers Dry Lake bed that is today the home of Edwards Air Force Base and NASA
Armstrong Flight Research Center.
The XS-1 had an aggressive flight test schedule, with not too many check-out flights before going
for the performance goal of supersonic flight. The extent of the test program was actually a matter
of contentious debate between the AAF, the NACA, and Bell. In the end, Bell dropped out of the
mix for contractual and financial reasons, and the NACA and AAF proceeded to collaborate on
the flight test program. But the continued collaboration was not without tension. The AAF leaders
and pilots continually pushed for an aggressive flight test program, making significant steps with
each flight. The NACA, on the other hand, advocated for a much slower, methodical pace where
substantial data would be recorded with each flight and carefully analyzed before proceeding on to
the next boundary. In the end, the AAF vision predominantly prevailed, although there was a rea-
sonable suite of instrumentation on board the aircraft. The XS-1 was outfitted with a six-channel
telemeter, where NACA downlinked data on airspeed, altitude, elevator position, normal accelera-
tion, stabilizer position, aileron position, and elevator stick force, along with strain gauges to record
airloads and vibrations (Gorn 2001, p. 195). On the ground, the NACA crew had five trucks to sup-
port the data acquisition system – one to supply power, one for telemetry data, and three for radar.
The radar system was manually directed through an optical sight, but if visual of the aircraft was
lost, the radar system could be switched to automatic direction finding (Gorn 2001, pp. 187–188).
To lead the flying of the aircraft toward the perceived “sound barrier,” the AAF needed a pilot
with precision flying capabilities, someone who was unflappable under pressure, and someone
with scientific understanding of the principles involved. The Army turned to Captain Charles
E. “Chuck” Yeager – a young, 24-year-old P-51 ace from World War II – for the honor and
responsibility of being primary pilot. According to Colonel Albert Boyd who selected him, Yeager
had impeccable instinctive piloting skills and could work through the nuance of the aircraft’s
 1.1 Case Study: Supersonic Flight in the Bell XS-1 5

response to figure out exactly how it was performing (Young 1997, p. 41). Not only could he fly with
amazing skill, but the engineering team on the ground loved him for his postflight debriefs. Yeager
was able to return from a flight and relate in uncanny detail exactly how the aircraft responded
to his precise control inputs, all in a vernacular that the engineering staff could immediately
appreciate (Peebles 2014, p. 29). But it wasn’t just Yeager doing all of the work – he had a team
around him. Backing him up and flying an FP-80 chase plane was First Lieutenant Robert A.
“Bob” Hoover, who was also well known as an exceptional pilot. Captain Jackie L. “Jack” Ridley,
an AAF test pilot and engineer with an MS degree from Caltech, was the engineer in charge of the
project. Others involved included Major Robert L. “Bob” Cardenas, pilot of the B-29 Superfortress
carrier aircraft and officer in charge, and Lieutenant Edward L. “Ed” Swindell, flight engineer for
the B-29. Backing up these AAF officers was Richard “Dick” Frost, a Bell engineer and test pilot
who already had flight experience in the XS-1 and got Yeager up to speed on the intricacies of the
aircraft. This cast of characters is depicted in Figure 1.4.
Beyond this core group of military professionals was a team of NACA scientists and engineers
led by Walt Williams (see Figure 1.2). This team was focused predominantly on understanding
the flight physics in this exploratory program, providing deep technical insight and support to the
Air Force crew. Yet, this objective was inherently at odds with the AAF’s stated desire to push to
supersonic flight as quickly and safely as possible. This tension was aptly described by Williams:
“We were enthusiastic, there is little question. The Air Force group – Yeager, Ridley – were very,
very enthusiastic. We were just beginning to know each other, just beginning to work together.
There had to be a balance between complete enthusiasm and the hard, cold facts. We knew that
if this program should fail, the whole research airplane program would be set back. So, our prob-
lem became one of maintaining the necessary balance between enthusiasm and eagerness to get

Figure 1.4 The Air Materiel Command XS-1 flight test team, composed of (from left to right): Ed Swindell
(B-29 Flight Engineer), Bob Hoover (XS-1 Backup and Chase Pilot), Bob Cardenas (Officer-in-charge and
B-29 Pilot), Chuck Yeager (XS-1 Pilot), Dick Frost (Bell Engineer), and Jack Ridley (Project Engineer). Source:
U.S. Air Force.
6 1 Introduction

the job completed with a scientific approach that would assure success of the program. That was
accomplished” (Gorn 2001, pp. 194–195).
In the run-up to the first supersonic flight, the team carefully pushed forward. On Yeager’s first
powered flight on August 29, 1947, he accelerated up to Mach 0.85, exceeding the planned test point
of Mach 0.8. This negated NACA’s need to acquire telemetered data in the Mach 0.8–0.85 range,
leading to further tension between Yeager and Williams. In Yeager’s words, “They [the NACA
engineers and technicians] were there as advisers, with high-speed wind tunnel experience, and
were performing the data reduction collected on the X[S]-1 flights, so they tried to dictate the speed
in our flight plans. Ridley, Frost, and I always wanted to go faster than they did. They would recom-
mend a Mach number, then the three of us would sit down and decide whether or not we wanted to
stick with their recommendation. They were so conservative that it would’ve taken me six months
to get to the [sound] barrier” (Young 1997, p. 51 – quoted from Yeager and Janos (1985), p. 122).
Yeager was admonished by Colonel Boyd to cooperate more carefully with the NACA technical
specialists and to follow the test plan. This led to careful preflight briefings that, while Yeager con-
sidered to be tedious, were essential to flight safety and accomplishment of the test objectives. At
each briefing, Williams would review the lessons learned from the previous flight and detail the
objectives of the upcoming mission (Gorn 2001, pp. 195–196).
As Yeager flew at progressively higher flight speeds, he noticed significant changes in the trim
condition of the aircraft. At certain Mach numbers, the trim condition would change nose-up, and
at other Mach numbers it would trend toward nose-down, all accompanied by buffeting at various
flight conditions. For example, on one flight at Mach 0.88 and 40,000 ft, Yeager was unable to put
the aircraft into a light stall (even with the stick full aft), due to the lack of control authority. Then,
on October 10, 1947, Yeager piloted another mission in a series of powered flights to ever-higher
Mach numbers to test the response of the aircraft in this untested regime. After accelerating up to
an indicated Mach number of 0.94 at an altitude of 40,000 ft, Yeager found that he had lost virtually
all pitch control! He moved the control stick full fore and aft, yet obtained very little pitch response.
Fortunately, the XS-1 was still stable at this flight condition, if not controllable. At this point, Yeager
cut off the engines and came back for a landing on the expansive Rogers lakebed (Young 1997).
All of these various anomalies were due to compressibility effects, which were only poorly
understood at the time. As the aircraft exceeded the critical Mach number, shock waves would
form at various locations on the aircraft body. Furthermore, these shock waves could move sub-
stantially, with only a minor adjustment in freestream Mach number. Since there is a significant
pressure gradient across a shock wave, this could result in dramatic changes in the forces and
moments produced on control surfaces, and the strong pressure gradient across the shock would
often lead to boundary layer separation. Thus, if a shock happened to be present at a hinge line
for the elevator, the shock-induced boundary layer separation would create a thick unsteady wake
flow over the elevator, causing the dynamic pressure on this control surface to drop dramatically
and the elevator to lose effectiveness. With some foresight, researchers at NACA and designers
at Bell anticipated this eventuality and designed the XS-1 to enable pitch control by moving the
incidence angle of the entire horizontal tail (rather than inducing pitch changes using the elevator
alone). So, as Yeager and Ridley discussed the phenomena occurring on October 10 and earlier,
Ridley encouraged Yeager to adjust the horizontal tail angle of incidence to achieve pitch control,
instead of using the elevator.
The plan for the next flight was to go for it – Yeager’s intent was to fly supersonic. However, with
the technical uncertainty associated with loss of elevator control and shock-induced buffeting, the
NACA engineering team admonished Yeager to not exceed Mach 0.96 unless he was completely
certain that he could do so safely. Beyond the NACA team, however, Jack Ridley was the one whom
Yeager trusted the most. Ridley thought Yeager would be just fine controlling pitch with the moving
 1.1 Case Study: Supersonic Flight in the Bell XS-1 7

horizontal tail, actuating it in increments of a quarter or a third of a degree to achieve pitch control
without using the elevator. Ridley explained, “It may not be much, and it may feel ragged to you
up there, but it will keep you flying” (Young 1997, p. 56). Yeager trusted Ridley implicitly – much
more so than the NACA team. He later recounted, “I trusted Jack with my life. He was the only
person on earth who could have kept me from flying the X [S]-1” (Young 1997, p. 56).
So, on the morning of October 14, 1947, Yeager set out with his team to fly faster than Mach 1.
With Cardenas at the controls of the B-29, the Superfortress carried the Bell XS-1 up to altitude. On
the way up, Bob Hoover and Dick Frost joined up in formation in their FP-80s. Hoover positioned
himself in the “high chase” position: 10 mi ahead of the B-29 at an altitude of 40,000 ft, to give
Yeager an aiming point as he climbed and accelerated in the XS-1. Frost joined up slightly to the
right of and behind the B-29 in order to observe the rocket firing and drop of the XS-1.
When everyone was ready, Cardenas put the B-29 in a slight dive and started a countdown:
“10-9-8-7-6-5-3-2-1” (yes, he skipped “4”!, as he often skipped a number on these flights) and
pulled the release mechanism at 10:26 a.m. an altitude of 20,000 ft and an airspeed of 250 knots.
This airspeed was slightly lower than planned, causing the XS-1 to nearly stall. Yeager pitched
the nose down to regain airspeed and then lit all four burners to rapidly accelerate upward. As he
breezed past the high-chase FP-80, Hoover was able to snap the world-famous photo of Yeager’s
flight (Figure 1.5) as the XS-1 continued going faster and higher. Yeager then shut down two of the
rocket chambers in order to keep the vehicle’s acceleration in check. Accelerating through Mach
0.83, 0.88, and 0.92, he tested the aircraft’s response to horizontal stabilizer control. With the small
increments of a quarter or a third of a degree that Ridley recommended, Yeager was able to main-
tain effective control of the aircraft. Then, as Yeager recounted in his postflight report: “At 42,000’
in approximately level flight, a third cylinder was turned on. Acceleration was rapid and speed
increased to .98 Machi . The needle of the machmeter fluctuated at this reading momentarily, then
passed off the scale. Assuming that the off-scale reading remained linear, it is estimated that 1.05
Machi was attained at this time. Approximately 30% of fuel and lox remained when this speed was
reached and the motor was turned off” (Young 1997, p. 75).

Figure 1.5 Yeager accelerates in the Bell XS-1 on his way to breaking the “sound barrier” on October 14
1947. Source: NASA.
8 1 Introduction

Yeager had done it! As mentioned in his postflight report, his Machmeter indications were a bit
unusual. In fact, during the flight he radioed: “Ridley! Make another note. There’s something wrong
with this Machmeter. It’s gone screwey!” (Young 1997, p. 73). That radio transmission heralded the
dawn of a new era in aviation to supersonic speeds and well beyond. After maintaining supersonic
flight for about 15 seconds, he shut down the rocket motors, performed a 1-g stall, and descended
for a landing on Rogers dry lakebed.
Postflight analysis of the data, including corrections of the Machmeter reading for installation
error, revealed that Yeager had reached a maximum flight Mach number of 1.06. A reproduction
of this data is shown in Figure 1.6, where the initial jump in total and static pressures heralded
the formation of a shock wave in front of the probe tip, causing a loss of total pressure. This is
the characteristic “Mach jump” experienced by every Machmeter as the aircraft accelerates to
supersonic speeds.
There are a number of interesting and revealing features of this story that can tell us something
about flight testing. First, we see that this endeavor was anything but an individual effort. There
was a large team with many players involved – pilots, engineers, managers, analysts, range safety
officers, and so on. In this particular case, the flight test program was a collaboration between
two separate organizations – the AAF was leading the program execution, and were supported by
NACA’s technical experts. Even though there was tension between these two groups, they were
able to rise above those difficulties to work together in an effective manner to achieve the test
objectives.
The source of the tension was inherently due to different test objectives – the AAF crew was
tasked with breaking the sound barrier as quickly and safely as possible, while the NACA team
was focused on developing a scientific understanding of transonic and supersonic flight, requiring
a slower and more methodical approach. Flight test programs sometimes have such competing
objectives in mind, which requires deft coordination and program management in order to ensure
Pressure (n.d.)

Total pressure

Static pressure

145 150 155 160 165

Time (s)

Figure 1.6 Plot of the total and static pressure for the first supersonic flight of the XS-1 on October 14
1947. Source: Data from NASA.
 1.2 Types of Flight Testing 9

safety of flight and accomplishment of the test objectives. There is always a tension between
programmatic needs, budget, and safety.
Another hallmark of successful flight testing is the careful probing of the edges of the flight
envelope. Notice how the team approached the uncertain conditions associated with loss of
control and buffeting. They gingerly pushed the Mach limits higher and higher, with the hope
that any loss-of-control situation could be quickly recovered from. Despite the accelerated nature
of the test program, the team took the time to carefully analyze the data and debrief after each
flight. This was essential for gleaning insight from each test condition and informing the next step
in the flight test program. They took an incremental buildup approach – starting from low-risk
flights with known characteristics and carefully advancing to higher-risk flights, where the flight
characteristics were unknown and potentially hazardous.
Also note how the aircraft was instrumented beyond what a normal production aircraft would
have been. In fact, the record-setting XS-1 (the first airframe built) was only lightly instrumented
compared to its sister ship, the second airframe off the production line, which was targeted for a
much more detailed exploration of supersonic flight by the NACA team. This instrumentation is
critical for understanding exactly what is happening during flight and preserving a record for post-
flight analysis. The analytical work was done by a large team of engineers, technicians, and, in that
day, human “computers” who did many of the detailed computations of the data (see Figure 1.2).
After some initial renegade flying by Yeager, the flight test team settled into a rhythm of carefully
planned and executed flights. Before each flight they carefully planned the objectives and specific
maneuvers to fly on the next mission. The injunction was that the flight must proceed exactly as
planned, with specific plans for various contingencies and anomalies. This culture of flight testing is
absolutely essential for the safety and professionalism of the process. One common phrase captures
this mentality of flight testing: “plan the flight, and fly the plan.”
This initial foray into exploring the flight testing program of the XS-1 illustrates many of the
hallmarks of flight test programs. We’ll next discuss some of the different kinds of flight testing
being done today. Clearly, not every flight test program is as ambitious or adventurous as the XS-1
program, but a common objective is to answer the remaining unknown questions that are always
present in an aircraft development program, even after rigorous design work backed up by wind
tunnel testing and computational studies.

1.2 Types of Flight Testing

There are several different kinds of flight testing, driven by the objective of a particular program.
These motivations include scientific research, development of new technologies or experimental
capabilities, evaluation of operational performance, or airworthiness certification of new aircraft
for commercial use. Other kinds of flight tests include production flight test (first flight of a new
airframe of an already certified type, to verify compliance with design performance standards),
systems flight test (new systems installed, new external stores on a fighter aircraft that must be
tested for separation, new avionics systems), and post-maintenance test flight. Here, we’ll focus
our attention on flight testing for scientific research, assessment of experimental technologies,
developmental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, and airworthiness certification
programs. Other perspectives on the different kinds of flight testing are provided by Kimberlin
(2003), Ward et al. (2006), or Corda (2017).

1.2.1 Scientific Research

In many instances, the highest-quality scientific research can only be done in actual flight. Even
though wind tunnels are commonly available, results from these facilities are always limited in
10 1 Introduction

some way – facility effects such as streamwise pressure gradients in the test section, wall boundary
layer effects, test section blockage, turbulence intensity level, constraints on model size, lack of
Mach and/or Reynolds scaling, etc. are always present (see Tavoularis 2005 or Barlow et al. 1999
for a discussion of wind tunnels and their limitations). Similarly, computational fluid dynamics
simulations are inherently limited in their ability to model viscous, unsteady separated flows,
particularly when the model – such as a full aircraft – is large (see Cummings et al. 2015 for the
limitations on computational aerodynamics). Grid resolution, turbulence modeling strategies,
and time-accurate solutions will always need validation of some kind. Thus, the ultimate proof of
scientific principles associated with flight is to actually conduct experiments in flight.
The range of scientific experiments that can be studied via flight testing can be very broad
and conducted by government labs, universities, and industry. University flight test efforts
have included Purdue University’s development of pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) for in-flight
measurements of chordwise surface pressure distribution on an aircraft wing (Figure 1.7). The
advantage of PSP is that there is minimal flow intrusiveness, compared to the traditional pressure
belts mounted on top of the wing, which are banded and flexible tubes. Furthermore, it is much
simpler to instrument the aircraft with PSP, since no tubing has to be run into the fuselage and
connected to pressure transducers. In fact, the production Beechjet 400 shown in Figure 1.7 was
returned to normal flight under its regular airworthiness certification immediately following flight
testing (Lachendro 2000).
Another leading flight test program for scientific research is the University of Notre Dame’s
Airborne Aero-optics flight research program (Jumper et al. 2015). Researchers at Notre Dame,
led by Prof. Eric Jumper and Prof. Stanislav Gordeyev, study approaches for correcting optical
aberrations to laser beams propagating through unsteady shear flows and turbulence. Their active
correction schemes allow them to focus a laser beam emitted from one aircraft on the fuselage of a
target aircraft such as the Dassault Falcon 10 shown in Figure 1.8. These concepts are used for appli-
cations ranging from optical air-to-air communications to directed energy for military applications.
The US government is also active with scientific research enabled by flight testing programs. One
notable example is NASA’s F-18 high alpha research vehicle (HARV). The goal of the first phase of
this program was to understand vortex formation, trajectory, and breakdown on the F-18 operated at

Figure 1.7 Inspection of pressure-sensitive paint on Purdue University’s Beechjet 400 following a flight
test in 1999 (depicted left to right are Hirotaka Sakaue, Brian Stirm, and Jim Gregory). Source: Photo
courtesy of Nate Lachendro.
 1.2 Types of Flight Testing 11

Figure 1.8 Notre Dame’s Dassault Falcon 10. Source: U.S. Air Force.

Figure 1.9 Smoke and tuft flow visualization on the NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle at an angle of
attack of 20∘ . Source: NASA.

high angle of attack. The specially instrumented F-18 had tufts (short pieces of yarn) taped to the top
of the wing, smoke tracer particles released from orifices near the nose, dye flow visualization, and
hundreds of pressure taps. These various techniques were used to study local flow separation and
vortex trajectories. In-flight measurements, shown in Figure 1.9, clearly documented the formation
of vortices on the leading-edge extension (LEX) of the F-18 at high angle of attack, the trajectory of
these vortices, and the specific location of vortex breakdown. The vortex breakdown phenomenon,
12 1 Introduction

when occurring in the vicinity of the aft tail, led to significant tail buffeting and issues with fatigue
(see Fisher et al. 1990).

1.2.2 Experimental Flight Test

Now, we turn our attention from basic scientific and engineering studies to development and test
of new vehicle concepts. NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (formerly known as NASA
Dryden) has led the way over the years with this type of flight research (for a good historical
overview of NASA’s many flight research programs, see Gorn 2001 or Hallion and Gorn 2003). This
type of flight testing is all about pushing the boundaries of what is possible, through development
and demonstration of new flight technologies. Beyond the Bell XS-1 discussed earlier, there are
numerous flight research programs that the US Government has conducted (Miller 2001; Jenkins
et al. 2003). These cutting-edge aircraft are generally classified as X-planes, with the goal of proving
out new technologies or advanced concepts (see Figure 1.10). The Bell XS-1 was the first aircraft in
this distinguished lineup, which includes over 60 aircraft (and counting!). Many of these X-planes
led to successful production flight vehicles after a period of focused flight testing (see Miller 2001;
Jenkins et al. 2003; Corda 2017).
One interesting example is the X-wing project, which had the goal of improving the forward flight
speed of helicopters. This interesting vehicle, the Sikorsky S-72 shown in Figure 1.11, is a hybrid
between a fixed wing aircraft and a traditional rotorcraft. It could take off vertically like a traditional
helicopter, but then its rigid rotors could be stopped mid-flight as the aircraft transitioned from
vertical flight to forward flight. Instead of articulating the rotor blades as a traditional helicopter
does, the S-72 used compressed air blown from the edges of the blades to achieve lift control (called
circulation control – see Reader and Wilkerson 1977 for details). This innovative aircraft from the

Figure 1.10 Early X-planes, including the Douglas X-3 Stiletto (center) and (clockwise, from lower left)
Bell X-1A, Douglas D-558-1 Skystreak, Convair XF-92A, Bell X-5, Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket, and the
Northrop X-4 Bantam. Source: NASA.
 1.2 Types of Flight Testing 13

Figure 1.11 Sikorsky S-72 X-wing testbed aircraft. Source: NASA.

early 1980s has paved the way for high-speed helicopters today, such as the Sikorsky S-97 Raider or
the Airbus RACER program.
Vehicle flight testing programs are also pushing into the domain of unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS), commonly known as drones. For example, The Ohio State University developed and
flight tested the Avanti UAS, which is a 70-lb jet capable of autonomous, unmanned, high-speed
flight (Figure 1.12). This flight vehicle featured dual-redundant radio control links and a third
independent satellite communications link, to provide robust beyond-line-of-sight flight. Flight
research with this vehicle assessed the robustness of the control links, along with adaptive control
laws for real-time in-flight system identification (see Warwick 2017; McCrink and Gregory 2021;

Figure 1.12 The Ohio State University’s Avanti jet unmanned aircraft system. Source: Photo courtesy of
Kamilah King.
14 1 Introduction

or Chapter 16 for details). In the midst of the flight testing program, the Ohio State team set
official world records for speed (147 mph) and out-and-back distance (28 mi) of an autonomous
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), as certified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI)
and the National Aeronautic Association (NAA).

1.2.3 Developmental Test and Evaluation

Within the US military, a significant amount of time and energy are invested in development test
and evaluation (DT&E) flight testing. This aspect of flight testing involves a careful assessment of
how an aircraft flies, including evaluation of aircraft performance, stability, and handling qualities.
DT&E also includes performance assessment of new weapons, new software, and new airframes.
These tests are centered on assessment of compliance with performance standards and focus on
identifying anomalies in new systems. Test pilots (see Figure 1.13) push the performance limits
of the system and are often involved in test planning very early in the design cycle. For example,
if a new weapon system is designed for an aircraft, the developmental test pilot will evaluate the
separation characteristics, compatibility of the new weapon with the aircraft system across a wide
range of flight conditions, and evaluation of flutter flight characteristics. This testing and evaluation
are done through a gradual build-up approach that minimizes (but does not eliminate) risk.

1.2.4 Operational Test and Evaluation

Operational test and evaluation (OT&E) involves assessment of an air vehicle’s performance under
representative operational conditions. This often includes operation on different runways under
different conditions (e.g., rain, sleet, snow, etc.) or at high-density altitude (high elevation, hot
day). Operational testing also involves determination of crosswind limits on landing and taxiing
operations. Aircraft manufacturers will also assess aircraft system robustness and reliability under
a wide range of extreme weather conditions, including heat, cold, and icing.

Figure 1.13 Maj Rachael Winiecki, a developmental test pilot with the 461st Flight Test Squadron at
Edwards Air Force Base, and the first F-35 female test pilot. Also shown is Airman 1st Class Heather Rice, a
crew chief with the 412th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron. Source: U.S. Air Force.
 1.2 Types of Flight Testing 15

1.2.5 Airworthiness Certification

Airworthiness certification is the process by which an aircraft is demonstrated to conform to
approved design principles and that it is in a condition for safe operation. But what constitutes
safe flight? This generally involves an insignificant hazard to people or property on the ground and
minimal hazard to the occupants of the aircraft. Typically, a government’s civil aviation authority,
such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States, grants an airworthiness
certificate to an applicant submitting reports that document airworthiness for a new aircraft
type. This process can be lengthy, involving flight testing to document aircraft performance and
demonstrate compliance with safety standards.
In the United States, the regulatory authority for the FAA to certify the airworthiness of light
aircraft is Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“Aeronautics and Space”), Chapter I
(“Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation”), Subchapter C (“Aircraft”),
Part 23 (“Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Airplanes”) – we’ll refer to this as 14 CFR
§23 or simply part 23 (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 2021). Part 23 covers the certification
standards for general aviation aircraft, which have a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 lb or less
and carry 19 or fewer passengers. Since the scope of this book focuses on light aircraft, Part 23
is most relevant for our purposes. The subpart that is most relevant for flight testing is Subpart B
(14 CFR §23.2100 through §23.2165), which defines the requirements for flight testing of aircraft
for airworthiness certification.
Aircraft certified under Part 23 are grouped into different certification and performance levels
based on number of passengers that can be carried and flight speed (14 CFR §23.2005), which are
summarized in Table 1.1. Each level indicates a higher hazard, and a correspondingly higher bar
is set to mitigate the risks associated with those hazards. Aircraft at the higher certification levels
and higher performance levels will have higher standards to meet for certification.
Part 23 details the standards of safe flight that must be met for an aircraft to be certified as
airworthy by the FAA, organized into broad categories of performance metrics and flight charac-
teristics. Performance metrics include defining limits on the aircraft weight and center of gravity
position, the stall speed of the aircraft under various operating conditions, takeoff performance,
climb performance, glide performance, and landing distance required. The flight characteristics
for certification include demonstration that the airplane is controllable and maneuverable; that
the airplane can be trimmed in flight; that it has static and dynamic longitudinal, lateral, and
directional stability; that the aircraft has controllable stall characteristics in all maneuvers and that
Table 1.1 Airworthiness certification levels defined by part 23.

Airplane certification levels Airplane performance levels

Level 1 Maximum seating configuration of Airplanes with a V NO and

0–1 passengers Low speed V MO ≤ 250 KCAS (and
Level 2 Maximum seating configuration of M MO ≤ 0.6)
2–6 passengers
Level 3 Maximum seating configuration of Airplanes with a V NO or
7–9 passengers High speed V MO > 250 KCAS (and
Level 4 Maximum seating configuration of M MO > 0.6)
10–19 passengers

V NO = maximum structural cruising speed, V MO = maximum operating limit speed,

M MO = maximum operating Mach number, and KCAS represents the units for knots calibrated
airspeed.
Source: Based on FAA (2011).
16 1 Introduction

sufficient stall warning is provided; that spins are recoverable; that the airplane has controllable
ground handling characteristics; and that vibration and buffeting do not interfere with control
of the airplane or cause excessive fatigue. If certification is requested for flight into known icing
conditions, then the aircraft performance and handling characteristics must be shown to the same
level of safety even in icing conditions. This textbook provides an introduction to the underlying
principles for some of these flight tests; more detailed information is available from Kimberlin
(2003) or FAA Advisory Circulars (2003, 2011).
While the regulatory framework and overall safety criteria are defined in Part 23, the regulations
are intentionally sparse on details on how to actually demonstrate compliance for certification.
Instead, means of compliance (§23.2010) can be determined by the applicant, subject to approval
by the FAA. Typically, the means of compliance is established by a consensus standard. A type
certificate applicant for a new light aircraft could demonstrate compliance with a consensus-based
industry standard, which has been approved by the FAA. This compliance mechanism is a
dynamic and flexible approach (compared to explicitly defining the compliance mechanisms in
part 23), since consensus-forming bodies can quickly respond to new technologies and develop
consensus standards. One key example of such a body is ASTM International. The ASTM convenes
a number of committees, which are populated by representatives from various industry groups,
and also includes government (FAA) representatives. The key ASTM committee that covers
certification standards for light aircraft is the F44 committee on General Aviation Aircraft and
specifically the F44.20 subcommittee on Flight. At the time of writing this book, ASTM F44.20
had published standard specifications for flight test demonstration of aircraft weight and center of
gravity, operating limitations, aircraft handling characteristics, performance, and low-speed flight
characteristics (ASTM 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b). Historical guidance from the FAA is also
available for means of compliance with 14 CFR part 23 through nonregulatory advisory circulars
(FAA 2003, 2011).
It’s important to also be familiar with the historical approaches to airworthiness certification,
since there are many aircraft flying today that were certified under older versions of the regulations.
Predating certification of general aviation aircraft under part 23, certification was granted under the
Civil Air Regulations (from the late 1930s until 1965). Kimberlin (2003, chapter 1) provides a good
synopsis of these older regulations and how antique aircraft are still flying under airworthiness
certificates granted under the older regulations.
For decades, certification of light general aviation aircraft followed regimented flight testing
protocols that were explicitly defined in part 23. Over the years, the part grew more complex as
additional safety measures and compliance protocols were codified. The resulting regulation was
a rigid document that could not easily accommodate new technologies. For example, part 23 was
strictly written to document how a type applicant must demonstrate the performance of internal
combustion engines and the associated fuel system. This strict delineation of a compliance pathway
was fine when all general aviation aircraft were powered by internal combustion engines running
off Avgas. However, there are new propulsion system concepts emerging such as electric motors
driven by fuel cells, batteries, or hybrid battery-generator systems, but these could not be certified
under the former regimented structure of part 23. Type certificate applicants would have had to
demonstrate an equivalent level of safety and obtain waivers, but there was no established and
agreed-upon process for doing so. Thus, certification of new technologies such as electric propul-
sion would have been costly, with an uncertain outcome.
The current certification framework was developed in response to these challenges, leading to
a complete rewrite of part 23 in 2016. With the rewrite of part 23, the FAA removed historical
designations of various certification categories for airplanes. While these categories no longer exist
for new aircraft certifications, any aircraft certified under the old part 23 will retain its category
 1.3 Objectives and Organization of this Book 17

designation. These categories are normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter. The commuter
category is the designation for the largest general aviation aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight
of 19,000 lb, a passenger seating capacity of up to 19, and multiple engines. The normal, utility,
and acrobatic categories all have a much lower weight limit of 12,500 lb and a seating capacity of
up to 9. Normal category airplanes are approved for normal (routine) flying, stalls (but not “whip
stalls”), and routine commercial maneuvers (less than 60∘ bank). Airplanes certified for utility
category are approved for limited aerobatic maneuvers, which may include spins and commercial
maneuvers at higher bank angles (up to 90∘ ). Acrobatic category airplanes are approved for
acrobatic maneuvers, which is basically any maneuver that a pilot can fly, and found to be safe in
the flight testing program. For the normal, utility, and acrobatic categories, a given airplane could
be certified for one, two, or all three, with varying operating limitations corresponding to each.
Given that there are many aircraft routinely flying today that are well over 60 years old, one can
anticipate that these legacy certification categories will persist for quite some time as historical
and current aircraft continue flying.

1.3 Objectives and Organization of this Book

Our objective for this book is to provide the reader with an introduction to the exciting world of
flight testing of light aircraft and UAS. Within the broad theme of that overarching objective, we
specifically seek to:
(1) Provide a solid foundation for the reasons why flight testing is done the way it is. This involves
a clear and concise establishment of the theoretical principles. Each equation that is presented
here is backed up by physical explanations of the phenomena involved.
(2) Offer aerospace engineering students the context for connecting engineering theory with prac-
tice through guided flights in an aircraft. This provides the student with a visceral, empirical
way of connecting their theoretical knowledge of flight with practical knowledge. The goal is
for the student to develop a tacit understanding of flight beyond the explicit knowledge gleaned
in traditional classrooms.
(3) Introduce the concepts and practice of digital data acquisition and signal processing, which
is the underpinning of complex industrial and governmental flight test programs. These con-
cepts are typically not taught in the undergraduate aerospace curriculum, but are important
for knowing how to acquire and analyze flight test data using advanced, micro-scale sensors
and digital data acquisition systems.
(4) Provide an overview of many of the foundational flight test topics encountered in performance
flight testing. Individual chapters address each topic in turn, starting with the theoretical basis
for that aspect of aircraft performance and moving on to flight test methods for acquiring and
analyzing data for each performance metric.
This text is partitioned into two main segments – the first half of the book (Chapters 1–6) deals
with preliminary content and fundamental principles, while the second half (Chapters 7–16)
covers a series of flight test topics in detail. The flight tests covered here focus predominantly on the
performance and stability characteristics of an aircraft. We predominantly focus on light general
aviation aircraft and UAVs, since these are accessible to most students, and optimal learning
takes place when a student can experience flight testing firsthand. The material is designed to be
accessible such that a student can go with a qualified pilot in nearly any general aviation aircraft
and acquire meaningful flight test data. Dedicated flight test instrumentation, modifications to the
aircraft, or expensive hardware is not required. Thus, many of the flight test methods presented
here may be simplified relative to what is done in industry.
18 1 Introduction

Figure 1.14 Ohio State University students

Greg Rhodes and Jennifer Haines following
turn performance flight testing in a Piper
PA-28R at the Ohio State University Airport.
Source: Courtesy of Greg Rhodes and
Jennifer Haines.

This textbook should not be regarded as a definitive or even advisory source on how to conduct
flight testing. Instead, this book should be considered a general introduction to the ideas, scientific
principles, theoretical foundations, and some of the best practices associated with flight testing.
We provide a mix of aircraft performance theory with flight testing methods. Our goal is to invite
the student or practitioner into understanding the physical fundamentals underlying flight test-
ing – this will enable the reader to more fully appreciate why flight testing is done the way it is, to
spot errors or problems in theory or procedures, and to know how to adapt established practices to
unanticipated circumstances or new vehicle concepts. So, our aim is to provide a general overview
and introduction to flight testing: a general idea of the nature of the field and a sound theoretical
basis for what is done. We hope that this book will be a good first step as preparation for entry into
the flight testing domain, where more detailed methods can be picked up on the way.
Official publications, standards, and advisory documents from the relevant civil aviation
authority must be regarded as the definitive source for guidance on how to safely conduct flight
testing and how to provide sufficient information to comply with the certification requirements.
In the United States, this documentation is primarily found in 14 CFR 23, FAA Advisory Circular
23-8C, and any consensus standards accepted by the FAA (such as standards produced by ASTM
International’s F44 committee on General Aviation Aircraft). Other helpful sources of procedural
and practical information are found in Hamlin (1946), Smith (1981), Stoliker et al. (1996), Stinton
(1998), Kimberlin (2003), Ward et al. (2006, 2007), McCormick (2011), Mondt (2014), Corda
(2017), and the publicly available flight test guides from the governmental flight test organizations
(Herrington et al. 1966; USAF TPS 1986; USN TPS 1977, 1997; Gallagher et al. 1992; Stoliker 1995;
Olson 2003). More advanced details on system identification for aircraft are available from Klein
and Morelli (2006), Tischler and Remple (2012), or Jategaonkar (2015).
Flight testing is a fascinating, exhilarating field of aerospace engineering. It’s incredibly reward-
ing to connect theory with practice, and we hope that the thoughts we provide here will draw stu-
dents into a deeper understanding of flight through the intertwined approaches of theory and flying
in flight test. And we hope to inspire the next generation of flight test professionals (Figure 1.14)
to pursue this fascinating line of work. Hang on for a wild ride!

Nomenclature
M MO maximum operating Mach number
V MO maximum operating limit speed
V NO maximum structural cruising speed
 References 19

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAF Army Air Forces
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG center of gravity
DT&E developmental test and evaluation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
HARV high alpha research vehicle
LEX leading-edge extension
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OT&E operational test and evaluation
PSP pressure-sensitive paint
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

References

ASTM Committee F44 on General Aviation Aircraft, Subcommittee F44.20 on Flight. (2017). Standard
Specification for Weights and Centers of Gravity of Aircraft. F3082/F3082M-17, approved 15 October
2017, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/F3082_F3082M-17.
ASTM Committee F44 on General Aviation Aircraft, Subcommittee F44.20 on Flight. (2018a). Standard
Specification for Performance of Aircraft. F3179/F3179M-18, approved 1 May 2018, West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/F3179_F3179M-18.
ASTM Committee F44 on General Aviation Aircraft, Subcommittee F44.20 on Flight. (2018b). Standard
Specification for Aircraft Handling Characteristics. F3173/F3173M-18, approved 1 December 2018,
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/F3173_F3173M-18.
ASTM Committee F44 on General Aviation Aircraft, Subcommittee F44.20 on Flight. (2019a). Standard
Specification for Establishing Operating Limitations and Information for Aeroplanes.
F3174/F3174M-19, approved 1 May 2019, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1520/F3174_F3174M-19.
ASTM Committee F44 on General Aviation Aircraft, Subcommittee F44.20 on Flight. (2019b). Standard
Specification for Low-Speed Flight Characteristics of Aircraft. F3180/F3180M-19, approved 1 May
2019, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/F3180_F3180M-19.
Barlow, J., B., Rae, W. H., and Pope, A., 1999, Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 3, New York: Wiley.
Corda, S. (2017). Introduction to Aerospace Engineering with a Flight Test Perspective. Chichester, West
Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Cummings, R.M., Mason, W.H., Morton, S.A., and McDaniel, D.R. (2015). Applied Computational
Aerodynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Federal Aviation Administration (2003). Small Airplane Certification Compliance Program, Advisory
Circular 23-15A. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration (2011). Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, Advisory
Circular 23-8C. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Fisher, D.F., Del Frate, J.H., and Richwine, D.M. (1990). In-flight flow visualization characteristics of
the NASA F-18 high alpha research vehicle at high angles of attack. NASA Technical Memorandum
4193 http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19910010742.
Gallagher, G.L., Higgins, L.B., Khinoo, L.A., and Pierce, P.W. (1992). Fixed Wing Performance.
USNTPS-FTM-No. 108,. Patuxent River, MD: Naval Air Warfare Center.
20 1 Introduction

Gorn, M.H. (2001). Expanding the Envelope: Flight Research at NACA and NASA. Lexington, KY:
University Press of Kentucky.
Hallion, R.P. (1972). Supersonic Flight; The Story of the Bell X-1 and Douglas D-558. New York:
Macmillan.
Hallion, R.P. and Gorn, M.H. (2003). On the Frontier: Experimental Flight at NASA Dryden.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.
Hamlin, B. (1946). Flight Testing Conventional and Jet-Propelled Airplanes. New York: Macmillan
Company.
Herrington, R. M., Shoemacher, P. E., Bartlett, E. P., and Dunlap, E. W. (1966). Flight Test Engineering
Handbook, USAF Technical Report 6273, Edwards AFB, CA: US Air Force Flight Test Center.
Defense Technical Information Center Accession Number AD0636392, https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/
citations/AD0636392.
Jategaonkar, R.V. (2015). Chapter 2. In: Flight Vehicle System Identification: A Time-Domain
Methodology, 2e. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Jenkins, D. R., Landis, T., and Miller, J. (2003). American X-Vehicles: An Inventory – X-1 to X-50.
Monographs in Aerospace History No. 31, NASA SP-2003-4531.
Jumper, E.J., Gordeyev, S., Davalieri, D. et al. (2015). Airborne Aero-Optics Laboratory – Transonic
(AAOL-T). AIAA 2015-0657,. Kissimmee, FL: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
53rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
Kimberlin, R.D. (2003). Flight Testing of Fixed-Wing Aircraft. Reston, VA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Klein, V. and Morelli, E.A. (2006). Chapter 9. In: Aircraft System Identification: Theory and Practice.
Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Lachendro, N. (2000). Flight testing of pressure sensitive paint using a phase based laser scanning
system. MS thesis, West Lafayette, IN: School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University.
McCormick, B.W. (2011). Introduction to Flight Testing and Applied Aerodynamics. Reston, VA:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
McCrink, M. H. and Gregory, J. W. (2021). Design and development of a high-speed UAS for beyond
visual line-of-sight operations. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 101: 31. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10846-020-01300-2.
Miller, J. (2001). The X-planes – X-1 to X-45, 3e. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.
Mondt, M.J. (2014). The Tao of Flight Test: Principles to Live By. Boone, IA: J. I. Lord.
Olson, W.M. (2003). Aircraft Performance Flight Testing, AFFTC-TIH-99-01. Edwards AFB, CA: Air
Force Flight Test Center.
Peebles, C. (2014). Probing the Sky: Selected NACA Research Airplanes and their Contributions to Flight.
Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Reader, K. R. and Wilkerson, J. B. (1977). Circulation Control Applied to a High Speed Helicopter Rotor.
Report 77-0024, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, MD:
DTIC accession number ADA146674.
Smith, H.C. (1981). Introduction to Aircraft Flight Test Engineering. Basin, WY: Aviation Maintenance
Publishers.
Stinton, D. (1998). Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of the Airplane. Reston, VA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Stoliker, F.N. (1995). Introduction to Flight Test Engineering, AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series,
AGARD-AG-300, vol. 14. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and
Development.
Stoliker, F., Hoey, B., and Armstrong, J. (1996). Flight Testing at Edwards: Flight Test Engineers’ Stories
1946–1975. Lancaster, CA: Flight Test Historical Foundation.
 References 21

Tavoularis, S. (2005). Measurement in Fluid Mechanics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tischler, M.B. and Remple, R.K. (2012). Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification, 2e. Reston, VA:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (2021). Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Airplanes. Title 14,
Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 23 (14 CFR §23). http://www.ecfr.gov (accessed 01 January 2021).
U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School (1986). Performance Phase Textbook, vol. 1, USAF-TPS-CUR-86-01.
Edwards AFB, CA: US Air Force Test Pilot School.
U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. (1977). Fixed Wing Performance: Theory and Flight Test Techniques.
USNTPS-FTM-No. 104, Patuxent River, MD: Naval Air Test Center.
U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. (1997). Fixed Wing Stability and Control: Theory and Flight Test
Techniques. USNTPS-FTM-No. 103, Patuxent River, MD: Naval Air Warfare Center.
Ward, D., Strganac, T., and Niewoehner, R. (2006). Introduction to Flight Test Engineering, 3e, vol. 1.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Ward, D., Strganac, T., and Niewoehner, R. (2007). Introduction to Flight Test Engineering, vol. 2.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Warwick, G. (2017). Ohio State pushes speed envelope in UAS Research. Aviation Week and Space
Technology 18 (2017): 44.
Wolfe, T. (1979). The Right Stuff . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Yeager, C. and Janos, L. (1985). Yeager: An Autobiography. Toronto: Bantam Books.
Young, J.O. (1997). Meeting the Challenge of Supersonic Flight. Edwards AFB, CA: Air Force Flight Test
Center.

View publication stats