Vinayak Nair/ AEROSPACE

Home / Projects / Fixed-Wing Flight Controls

Verified software baselineEducational SIL / not flight-correlated

Fixed-Wing Flight Controls SIL

FLIGHT DYNAMICS · AUTOPILOT · ACTUATORS · SENSORS · SEEDED MONTE CARLO

This low-order fixed-wing SIL model evaluates autopilot response with actuator limits, deterministic sensor errors, gusts, coupled dynamics and a repeatable uncertainty campaign.

Three-panel software-in-the-loop altitude, airspeed and pitch response used to introduce the fixed-wing controls study.

01Verified baseline

All figures below are tied to the committed default configuration and seed 42. They demonstrate deterministic software behavior for the declared equations and controls; they are not comparisons with flight-test truth.

50 / 50
Finite Monte Carlo runs
-31.476 m
60 s altitude error
183.355 m/s
60 s airspeed
-23.653 m
80 s coupled altitude error
184.465 m/s
80 s coupled airspeed
Seed 42
Repeatable campaign
60 s PASSLongitudinal solve
80 s PASSCoupled longitudinal / lateral-directional solve
PASS / PASSActuator and seeded-sensor scripts

02Simulation evidence

The plots are rendered from the committed verification configuration. Open either image to inspect the labels and traces at full resolution.

Three-panel software-in-the-loop plot of altitude, airspeed and pitch over a 60-second longitudinal run.
Deterministic run

Longitudinal command response

The bounded pitch command drives altitude toward 6,500 m while proportional speed hold recovers the airspeed transient. The final altitude error is -31.476 m; this is regression evidence, not an aircraft-performance claim.

Canonical values

Altitude response from 50 seeded uncertainty runs, showing individual traces, mean and 5th-to-95th percentile band.
Seeded uncertainty

50-run dispersion campaign

All 50 runs remain finite under the declared mass, inertia, aerodynamic and gust dispersions. Mean final altitude error is -30.794 m; the final-error 5th–95th percentile range is -40.397 to -16.753 m.

Reported evidence

03What the verification pass changed

The evidence run found and corrected three material implementation problems. The pitch controller signs were opposite the declared Cm_de < 0 convention; the body-axis q*u term had the wrong sign in two models; and sensor noise advanced a stateful random generator inside an adaptive ODE callback.

The corrected baseline adds a bounded pitch command, elevator trim, proportional speed hold, stiff actuator integration and pre-generated sensor noise interpolated on the declared output grid.

CheckResultEvidence meaning
Longitudinal model60 s PASSFinite, repeatable default scenario
Coupled model80 s PASSFinite coupled response
Monte Carlo50 / 50 finiteSeeded software dispersion campaign
ActuatorsPASSBounded first-order surface behavior
SensorsPASSDeterministic seeded-error behavior

04Controls and simulation architecture

LayerImplemented behavior
Aircraft plantLongitudinal and coupled rigid-body models with low-order lift, drag and moment approximations
Guidance / controlAltitude-to-pitch, roll, yaw damping and proportional speed-hold loops
ActuationBounded first-order elevator, aileron and rudder dynamics
SensingDeterministic seeded gyro and altitude error injection
DisturbanceSinusoidal gust inputs and declared uncertainty dispersions
EvidenceScenario checks, actuator and sensor regressions, plots and machine-readable summary

The controller-to-plant path is deliberately inspectable: command → controller → actuator → aircraft state → sensor model → regression metrics.

05Evidence provenance and reproduction

The portfolio figures were generated from repository commit f382713. The machine-readable summary is the source of exact displayed values.

Reproduce the recorded baseline
python -m pip install -e .
python tests/regression_checks.py
python tests/sensor_regression_checks.py
python tools/generate_verification_evidence.py --check

Review verification_summary.json for exact values and VERIFICATION_REPORT.md for scope and limitations.

06Claim boundary

Demonstrated
  • Deterministic default scenarios
  • Declared controller and actuator behavior
  • Repeatable seeded sensor errors
  • 50-run uncertainty execution
  • Automated regression evidence
Not demonstrated
  • Validated F-16 aerodynamics
  • Correlation with wind-tunnel or flight-test data
  • Gain scheduling or envelope protection
  • Hardware-in-the-loop or real-time execution
  • Flight readiness or aircraft performance
Representative model

The aerodynamic model is low-order and constant-coefficient, with small-angle approximations in the coupled formulation. “F-16-inspired” describes the educational configuration; it is not a fidelity or validation claim.