NASA/TM—2012–216008

Survey of Applications of Active Control 

Technology for Gust Alleviation and New 

Challenges for Lighter-weight Aircraft

Christopher D. Regan and Christine V. Jutte

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

April 2012
NASA STI Program ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated 

to the advancement of aeronautics and space 

science. The NASA scientific and technical 

information (STI) program plays a key part in 

helping NASA maintain this important role.

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information 

Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for 

archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. The 

NASA STI program provides access to the 

NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and its 

public interface, the NASA Technical Report 

Server, thus providing one of the largest 

collections of aeronautical and space science 

STI in the world. Results are published in both 

non-NASA channels and by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes the 

following report types:

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant 

phase of research that present the results of 

NASA Programs and include extensive data 

or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical 

data and information deemed to be of 

continuing reference value. NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal professional 

papers but has less stringent limitations on 

manuscript length and extent of graphic 

presentations.

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, 

seminars, or other meetings sponsored 

or co-sponsored by NASA.

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing help desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

 Access the NASA STI program home page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI Help 

Desk at 443-757-5803

 Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

443-757-5802

 Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

This page is required and contains approved text that cannot be changed.
NASA/TM—2012–216008

Survey of Applications of Active Control 

Technology for Gust Alleviation and New 

Challenges for Lighter-weight Aircraft

Christopher D. Regan and Christine V. Jutte

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California

 Insert conference information, if applicable; otherwise delete 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Dryden Flight Research Center

Edwards, CA 93523-0273

April 2012
 

 Enter acknowledgments here, if applicable. 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

443-757-5802
1

Abstract

This report provides an historical survey and assessment of the state of the art in the modeling and

application of active control to aircraft encountering atmospheric disturbances in flight. Particular 

emphasis is placed on applications of active control technologies that enable weight reduction in aircraft 

by mitigating the effects of atmospheric disturbances. Based on what has been learned to date, 

recommendations are made for addressing gust alleviation as the trend for more structurally efficient 

aircraft yields both lighter and more flexible aircraft. These lighter more flexible aircraft face two 

significant challenges: reduced separation between rigid-body and flexible modes, and increased 

sensitivity to gust encounters due to decreased wing loading and improved lift-to-drag ratios. The primary 

audience of this paper is engineering professionals new to the area of gust load alleviation and interested 

in tackling the multifaceted challenges that lie ahead for lighter-weight aircraft.

1. Introduction

This report provides a historical survey and assessment of the state of the art (SOA) in application of 

active control of aircraft encountering atmospheric disturbances in flight. Particular emphasis is placed on 

applications of active control technologies that enable weight reduction in aircraft by mitigation of 

detrimental effects caused by atmospheric disturbances. The intent of this report is to survey relevant 

systems that have been evaluated experimentally in wind tunnels or flight; also included are case studies 

of well-documented operational systems. Specifically excluded from this report are the myriad theoretic 

and simulation-based studies that have been conducted. This report is not intended to present an 

exhaustive survey; rather it is intended to be a concise presentation from which dominant historical 

themes, the SOA, and future trends can be assessed. The primary audience of this report is engineering 

professionals new to the subject area and interested in tackling the multifaceted challenges that lie ahead.

Understanding and modeling the response of an aircraft to atmospheric disturbances was recognized 

as a fundamental challenge early in aviation history. Aircraft modeling, atmospheric modeling, and 

airworthiness standards have co-evolved along with advances in aircraft capability and design. This 

advancement and co-evolution has occurred within individual design and analysis domains as well as an 

increase in the integration and coupling between these domains. The 1901 Wright gliders and early 

Wright flyers featured wing anhedral to provide resistance to rolling motion in response to side gusts 

(Etkin, 1980). The theory of aircraft encountering gusts, as it was understood in 1915, was included in the 

first National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) report to Congress (Wilson, 1916). The 

NACA report contains aircraft equations of motion, representation of aircraft stability derivatives, and a 

simple model for aircraft response to encounters with discrete multi-dimensional disturbances

(Etkin, 1980) (Wilson, 1916).

Prior to the early 1930s, airframes were designed to withstand flight maneuver load conditions alone; 

loads resulting from encounters with gusts were not considered for structural design of the airframe 

(Hoblit, 1988).The necessity of including aircraft motion in the gust response was also realized in the late 

1930s (Hoblit, 1988). Incorporation of flexible, dynamic structural response was used beginning in the 

mid-1950s (Hoblit, 1988). Over the past few decades, the fidelity and accuracy of the models has 

improved, flight control systems have become more critical in the analysis, and the methods and 

techniques have been codified in terms of airworthiness standards (Hoblit, 1988) 

(Wright & Cooper, 2007).
2

The subject of this report exists amid a confluence of multiple traditional aerospace disciplines, 

namely: atmospheric science, aerodynamics, structural response, and flight control systems. There are 

many different types of objectives that a given application may have which can be satisfied by the 

implementation of an active control system. Some examples of the different objectives include alleviation 

of peak (maximal) load conditions, enhancement of fatigue life, and improvement in flying qualities 

(Honlinger, Zimmermann, Sensburg, & Becker, 1995). Additional active control technologies related to 

structural response with weaker, though not entirely separable, coupling to atmospheric disturbance 

objectives include deformation control, elastic mode control, flutter suppression, and flutter margin 

improvement (Honlinger, Zimmermann, Sensburg, & Becker, 1995).

Section 2 of this report provides the reader with a basic foundation in the modeling methods and 

technologies required for understanding the SOA in active control for mitigating atmospheric 

disturbances. The section also contains some discussion of pertinent airworthiness regulations and 

standards. Section 3 provides a discussion of the SOA operational systems, flight tests, and wind tunnel 

experiments. Section 4 presents conclusions and recommendations.

2. Gust Modeling and Aircraft Response

This section introduces the atmospheric disturbance modeling (referred to as gust or turbulence) and 

aircraft aerodynamic and structural modeling necessary to understand SOA practices and airworthiness 

standards. The background on modeling gusts and co-evolution of airworthiness standards is 

predominantly drawn from (Hoblit, 1988). Many educational books on aerodynamics, aircraft structure, 

and aeroelasticity contain a sufficient treatment of aircraft response to gust encounters to enable an 

understanding of SOA applications; thorough treatment of the topic is contained in few references,

including: (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007) (Bisplinghoff, 1996).

2.1 Modeling Gusts and Turbulence

Atmospheric wind can be considered a superposition of three types of flow: mean wind, waves, and 

turbulence (Stull, 2000). Mean wind is relatively constant with variation over the course of hours (Stull, 

2000). Waves are regular oscillations of wind with variation on the order of tens of minutes (Stull, 2000). 

The turbulent component of wind is irregular, anisotropic, with quasi-random variations on the order of 

seconds to minutes (Stull, 2000). The period of variation for mean wind and waves are generally too slow 

to be considered for the dynamic response of an aircraft; the focus of the remainder of this section is on 

the approximations used for modeling the turbulent component of wind for exciting an aircraft response.

Atmospheric disturbance models often categorize the form of the disturbance into two idealized 

categories; discrete and continuous (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). Discrete gusts are generally 

considered deterministic, have simple forms, and are typically treated in the time domain (Hoblit, 1988) 

(Wright & Cooper, 2007). Continuous turbulence is treated as a non-deterministic distribution and is

treated in either the time domain or frequency domain (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). Each 

form of the gust model is generally considered to be a spatial variation and invariant to both time and 

aircraft motion, though it is often convenient to express the gust variation as a temporal variation

(Wright & Cooper, 2007).

Three forms of discrete gusts are of interest and are commonly encountered in application. The 

simplest form, and the first form historically implemented, is an instantaneous, uniform change in gust 

velocity known as sharp-edged or step gusts (Wilson, 1916) (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). 

Ramped gusts apply the change in gust velocity as a linear function (Hoblit, 1988). The 1-cosine gust 
3

models the gust form as a sinusoidal application of gust velocity, and more accurately captures the form 

of a solitary gust (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007).

Continuous turbulence is represented as random variation in gust velocity. Two forms of continuous 

turbulence distributions are commonly encountered in application: Dryden and von Kármán

(Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). Both the Dryden and von Kármán distributions are defined by 

their power spectral density and lend themselves to application in either the frequency domain or time 

domain (via application of filtered white noise) (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). The Dryden and 

von Kármán distributions are both defined by a characteristic scale wavelength (typically a function of 

altitude) and the root-mean-square turbulence velocity (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). The von 

Kármán distribution is often regarded as a more accurate fit to measured atmospheric distributions, 

though the Dryden distribution has a more simple form and is easier to implement in the time domain as 

filtered white noise (Hoblit, 1988).

In addition to the idealized form of the modeled gust or turbulence, the applied dimensionality and 

spatial distribution (non-uniformity) of the disturbance also define a typical gust model. Gusts and 

turbulence tend to be isotropic in the real atmosphere (Hoblit, 1988) (Wright & Cooper, 2007). A notable 

exception to the isotropy simplification is turbulence due to thermals, which is anisotropic and has greater 

intensity in the vertical direction (Stull, 2000). Gusts and turbulence also tend to affect an aircraft nonuniformly in real encounters, for example, turbulence with length scales less than that of the wingspan of 

an aircraft will have variations in both direction and magnitude along the span of the wing.

Treatment of multi-dimensional and non-uniform gust distribution applications are rare in published 

literature, although some interesting results have been obtained. Analysis comparing one-dimensional 

(1D) and three-dimensional (3D) gust load modeling on the C-5A Galaxy aircraft (Lockheed Martin, 

Bethesda, Maryland) showed that 3D gust modeling decreased wing loads and increased horizontal tail 

loads; these results were partially verified through flight-testing (Eichenbaum, 1975). Analysis comparing 

1D and 3D turbulence on the L-1011 TriStar aircraft (Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Maryland) showed that 

3D gust modeling decreased wing bending and shear loads and significantly increased wing torsion load 

due to excitation of the first antisymmetric bending mode (Hoblit, 1988). This result is significant in that 

it shows how neglecting the dimensional cross-correlation of gusts fails to predict important responses of 

the aircraft to 3D gusts. Experimental L-1011 flight response data compared better with a non-uniform 

gust model (Johnston, 1979). In a simulation study of the B-2 Spirit aircraft (Northrup Grumman, Falls 

Church, Virginia), it was found that a uniform spanwise gust distribution was predicting larger loads than 

a non-uniform gust distribution (Crimaldi, Britt, & Rodden, 1993).

2.2 Modeling Aerodynamic and Structural Response

Atmospheric disturbances influence the aerodynamic loads acting on the airframe; in turn, the 

airframe structure reacts in terms of structural deformation and internal loads. The aerodynamic modeling 

for gust response has evolved from modeling the quasi-steady response to incorporating both steady and 

unsteady effect. Similarly, structural modeling for gust response has evolved from modeling the aircraft 

as a rigid structure to incorporating flexible dynamic structural response. The structural and aerodynamic 

coupling mechanism is the study of aeroelasticity. The ensuing dynamic aircraft motion and control 

system response is the study of flying qualities and flight control systems. Even cursory treatments of 

each of these traditional disciplines are beyond the scope of this report. It is important that adequate 

aircraft simulation fidelity be achieved to properly propagate the effects of a gust encounter. For example, 

application of a vertical 1-cosine discrete uniform gust is easily incorporated in many modern 

simulations; application of a three-dimensional gust, non-uniformly varied over a flexible airframe is 

beyond the capabilities of many modern simulations that were not built explicitly for that purpose.
4

2.3 Airworthiness Regulations and Standards

In the United States the first civil airworthiness requirements explicitly relating to gust response were 

released in 1934 (Civil Aeronautics Board, 1934). Those requirements specified the computation of an 

aircraft response to a discrete sharp-edged gust acting normal to the flight path and acting separately on 

wing surface and tail surfaces; the aircraft structure was assumed to be rigid and the effects of aircraft 

motion were neglected (Civil Aeronautics Board, 1934). The regulation was modified in 1937 to attempt 

to capture the effects of the rigid body motion of aircraft by modifying the prescribed gust form to a 

linear-ramped type based on the specific parameters of the aircraft (Bureau of Air Commerce, 1937). The 

gust form was again modified in 1956 to a 1-cosine form to more accurately reflect aircraft responses to 

gust encounters measured from flight data (Civil Aeronautics Board, 1956).

Present airworthiness requirements for gust loads were last modified in 1996. The requirements 

specify the use of both discrete and continuous gusts (Federal Aviation Administration, Section 341, 

“Gust and Turbulence Loads,” 1996). Continuous gust modeling was added to the FAR in 1980 (Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1980). The discrete 1-cosine pulse was modified in 1996 to represent a gust 

tuned to the aircraft response, specifically by requiring the use of dynamic loads analysis along with 

various lengths of gusts to determine critical gust conditions (Federal Aviation Administration, Section 

341, “Gust and Turbulence Loads,” 1996). This change to the discrete gust requirements effectively 

harmonized the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 25 with the Joint Aviation Requirements Part 25 of 

Europe (Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Docket No. 27902, Amendment No. 25-86, 1996). A 

summary of the changes in required gust form and the aircraft response modeling is provided in table 1.

Current design load requirements for gusts and turbulence are determined by a uniform distribution of the 

gust velocity; although, as discussed previously, analysis of the response to non-uniform gust encounters 

could yield significant differences.

Table 1. Summary of United States Civil Airworthiness regulation maturation.

Airworthiness regulation (year) Gust form description Aircraft response

CAB: Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7a 

(1934)

Discrete, 1D, sharp-edged No dynamics

CAR: Part 04 (1937) Discrete, 1D, ramped Rigid body dynamics

CAR: Part 04b-3 (1956) Discrete, 1D, 1-cosine Rigid body dynamics

FAR: Part 25 (1965) Discrete, 1D, 1-cosine Rigid body dynamics with 

flexible structure

FAR: Part 25 Appendix G (1980) Continuous, von Kármán Rigid body dynamics with 

flexible structure

FAR: Part 25 (1996) Discrete, tuned 1-cosine Rigid body dynamics with 

flexible structure

3. State-of-the-Art Applications

The SOA in application of active controls to mitigate gust response has been organized into three 

distinct groups for this report: operational aircraft, flight test experiments, and wind tunnel experiments. 
5

Each group is presented separately in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively, each in roughly 

chronological order.

3.1 Operational Aircraft

Several aircraft have been developed, or have been modified, to use advancements in active control 

systems to mitigate the effects of gusts.

The Lockheed C-5A is one of the earliest examples of an aircraft incorporating active control to 

alleviate the detrimental effects of atmospheric disturbances. The C-5A aircraft suffered from fatigue life 

problems related to wing bending loads (Globalsecurity.org). Several load alleviation systems were 

evaluated on the C-5A aircraft, including a maneuver load alleviation system and a passive alleviation 

system that simply biased the aileron deflections upward to reduce wing bending load (Disney, 1975).

Eventually the Active Lift Distribution Control System (ALDCS) was developed after a C-5 wing fatigue 

test program indicated a need to reduce wing stress during both turbulence encounters and normal 

maneuvering (Disney, 1975). The ALDCS system used dedicated forward and aft vertical wingtip 

accelerometers and the existing inertial reference system to determine wing bending and torsional motion. 

The ALDCS interfaced with the existing stability augmentation system to actuate the ailerons and inboard 

elevators. The ALDCS system reduced the wing root bending moment by more than 30 percent, while not 

exceeding 5 percent torsional increase (Hargrove, 1976). The system was implemented with no 

significant reduction in stability or impact to handling qualities (Hargrove, 1976). The ALDCS system 

was eventually superseded by a wing structure modification; the structural modification added 18,000 lb 

(approximately 5.5 percent) to the empty weight of the aircraft (Globalsecurity.org).

The Lockheed L-1011-500 aircraft was the final derivative of the L-1011 family. The -500 variant 

included an Active Control System (ACS) that enabled a 5.8-percent increase in wingspan accounting for 

an estimated 3-percent reduction in total drag (Johnston, 1979). The incorporation of ACS to enable the 

wingspan increase eliminated the need to increase the aircraft empty weight by 1.25 percent (Johnston, 

1979). The ACS system was developed to provide maneuver load alleviation (MLA) and gust load 

alleviation (GLA) without significant structural modification (Johnston, 1979). The sensor and actuation 

requirements for the ACS were similar to those used for the C-5A ALDCS. Wingtip and fuselage forward

and aft vertical accelerometers as well as fuselage pitch gyroscopes were added to the aircraft to support 

the ACS. The horizontal stabilizers and ailerons were used for control effectors. The effects of the ACS 

on handling qualities were negligible.

The B-1 Lancer aircraft (The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois) employs a ride quality 

enhancement system that suppresses structural vibrations that are aggravated by the presence of gust

disturbances (Honlinger, Zimmermann, Sensburg, & Becker, 1995) (Vartio, Shimko, & Tilmann, 2005) 

(Wykes, Mori, & Borland, 1972). The Structural Mode Control System on the B-1 Lancer actively 

suppresses the unfavorable motion at the pilot station using dedicated active canard-like control surfaces 

and a co-located accelerometer. The B-1 structural suppression system is fail-safe: the structural integrity 

of the airframe is maintained if the system fails, however, the flying qualities will be reduced. The total 

weight savings attributed to implementation of the active system, as opposed to adding structural 

stiffness, is approximately 9100 lb (Honlinger, Zimmermann, Sensburg, & Becker, 1995).

The B-2 Spirit aircraft has low wing loading and near-neutral pitch stability, making it susceptible to 

atmospheric disturbances (Britt, Volk, Dreim, & Applewhite, 1999). The gust loading requirements, as 

opposed to the maneuver loading requirements, size the structure of a significant portion of the inboard 

wing (Britt, Volk, Dreim, & Applewhite, 1999). The minimal vertical profile of the B-2 aircraft makes it 

less sensitive to lateral gusts (Crimaldi, Britt, & Rodden, 1993). The B-2 gust alleviation system uses an 
6

estimation of the gust component of the aircraft angle of attack computed as the difference between the 

measured angle of attack and the inertially-derived angle-of-attack estimate (Britt, Volk, Dreim, 

& Applewhite, 1999). The nominal inboard elevons and a dedicated gust load alleviation surface (GLAS) 

at the centerline of the aircraft are used for gust response (Britt, Volk, Dreim, & Applewhite, 1999). The 

B-2 GLA function pitches the aircraft into a gust to minimize normal acceleration and loads. Actuation of 

the GLAS and inboard elevons reduces the low-frequency rigid-body gust response and the inboard 

elevons excite the aircraft’s first symmetric flexible mode. Thus, the outer elevons are simultaneously 

commanded out of phase to damp this mode. In certain flight conditions, the frequencies of the symmetric 

flexible mode and the short period are very similar (Britt, Volk, Dreim, & Applewhite, 1999). Overall, the 

closed-loop GLA “reduces incremental gust loads by up to 50%” (Britt, Volk, Dreim, & Applewhite, 

1999).

Recent commercial aircraft have taken advantage of earlier advancements in active control for gust 

alleviation, although very little information is available in the public domain. The Airbus A320 aircraft

(introduced in 1987) (Airbus, of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V., 

Netherlands) originally featured a Load Alleviation Function (LAF), which was later removed and was 

not incorporated into the Airbus A321, A319 aircraft, nor A318 aircraft. The LAF functionality has 

recently been reintroduced on some in-service A320 airplanes to allow a 1.3-percent increase in 

maximum takeoff weight (Kaminski-Morrow, 2008). The Airbus A330 aircraft (introduced in 1994) and 

the Airbus A340 aircraft (introduced in 1993) incorporated maneuver load alleviation systems as well as a 

flying quality enhancement system known as Comfort in Turbulence, or CIT. The objective of the CIT 

system is to increase the fuselage damping response (at 2.0 to 4.0 Hz) by actively controlling the rudder 

and elevators (Honlinger, Zimmermann, Sensburg, & Becker, 1995). The Airbus A380 aircraft

(introduced in 2007) also features a form of GLA system (Norris & Wagner, 2005). The Boeing 787 

aircraft (introduced in 2011) is reported to use a MLA system as well as a flying quality enhancement 

system (Norris & Wagner, 2009). The flying quality enhancement system incorporates “static air data 

sensors” to detect the onset of lateral and vertical turbulence and uses ailerons, spoilers, and elevons to 

counteract the turbulence (Norris & Wagner, 2009).

A summary of the use of active controls for mitigation of gust response on operational aircraft is 

contained in table 2. Each application has a unique objective and a unique set of aircraft constraints, 

which makes a quantitative comparison difficult. Early examples, including those applied to the C-5A, 

L-1011, B-1, and B-2 aircraft, were developed as a mitigation to design problems that surfaced late in the 

development process or were developed to enable capability enhancement. Recent commercial 

applications have incorporated active control technology from the onset of the design process, although 

details on the success and benefits of applying those technologies are lacking within publicly available 

literature.
7

Table 2. Summary of operational aircraft with documented active control systems to mitigate gust 

response.

Aircraft Principle objective Sensors Actuation Critical improvement 

metric

C-5A Load alleviation and 

fatigue life extension

Inertial Symmetric aileron Empty weight 

reduction 5.5%

L-1011-500 Load alleviation for 

wing span extension

Inertial Symmetric aileron 

and outboard 

spoilers

Empty weight 

reduction 1.25% 

Drag reduction 3%

B-1 Ride quality Inertial Canard-like vanes 

on nose

Empty weight 

reduction 4.7%

B-2 Load alleviation and 

ride quality

Aerodynamic 

and inertial

Inboard elevons and 

dedicated surface

Gust load reduced 50%

A320 Load alleviation Inertial Ailerons, spoilers, 

and elevators

N/A

A330 and 

A340

Load alleviation and 

ride quality

Inertial Rudders and 

elevators

N/A

A380 Load alleviation and 

ride quality

N/A N/A N/A

787 Load alleviation and 

ride quality

Aerodynamic Ailerons, spoilers, 

and elevators

N/A

3.2 Flight Test Experiments

Early flight tests of an active flight control system on a small transport aircraft showed that turbulence 

loads were alleviated by roughly 7 percent when the autopilot was activated even though the autopilot 

was not designed specifically to reduce gust response (Payne, 1953). The flight tests also showed that 

small variations in autopilot sensitivity did not have a significant effect on load alleviation performance.

A flight investigation of a control system specifically designed to improve ride quality on a small 

transport aircraft demonstrated a decrease in normal accelerations and pitching velocity, but an increase in 

wing root bending moment (Phillips, 1957). Angle-of-attack feedback was used to control the flaps on the 

aircraft. The inboard flaps were deflected down while the outboard flaps were deflected up. This created a 

downwash at the tail, reducing the pitching moment and having little effect on the lift; however, the 

outboard flaps created a larger negative root bending moment than what was seen when no alleviation 

system was used. This alleviation also caused larger load magnitudes and frequencies on other parts of the 

structure, including the tail and aft spar, which could lead to fatigue problems. In larger gusts, however, 

the system was expected to have lower magnitudes of wing root bending moment; this was not tested. 

Finally, flight measurements using a bomber aircraft showed that at high altitudes a yaw damper 
8

alleviates loads in the vertical tail, while at low altitudes the load alleviation is much smaller because the 

aircraft naturally has higher damping of the Dutch roll motion at these altitudes (Phillips, 1957).

The use of active flight control systems to alleviate gust loads and enhance fatigue life was 

investigated in the 1960s as part of the Load Alleviation and Mode Stabilization (LAMS) program (Burris 

& Bender, 1969). The LAMS program was conducted by the United States Air Force (USAF) to 

demonstrate the ability of active flight control systems to alleviate gust loads and control structural modes 

on large flexible aircraft such as the Boeing B-52 and Lockheed C-5 (Burris & Bender, 1969). The LAMS

program included a flight test demonstration on a B-52E test platform (Burris & Bender, 1969) and was 

extended, through analysis, to show generic utility using C-5A models (Disney, 1975). The LAMS

program showed that a control system could reduce peak structural loads and structural fatigue damage 

rates without degrading basic aircraft stability and handling qualities (Disney, 1975).

Ride quality and gust alleviation was investigated by Dornier GMBH and DFVLR1between 1976 and 

1982 through development and flight-testing the Open Loop Gust Alleviation (OLGA) system. The 

OLGA system was primarily focused on alleviation of aircraft response in the 0.3 to 1.0 Hz range; this

range is particularly objectionable for ride quality and is often near the short-period flight mechanics 

mode. The open-loop nature of the system relied on measurement of the gust angle of attack through use 

of a fast and precise angle-of-attack aerodynamic sensor and an inertially-derived angle-of-attack 

estimation. Control was achieved through coordinated deflection of ailerons and elevators. Flight-testing 

revealed that the OLGA system unintentionally excited the wing bending mode due to a phase lag of 

180 deg near the wing bending mode natural frequency. Increasing the digital frame rate and adding notch 

filters eliminated the problem. The OLGA system demonstrated a significant reduction in vertical 

acceleration response (an approximately 10-dB reduction) and a small reduction in pitch rate response 

(Bohret, Krag, & Skudridakis, 1985).

The German Aerospace Center (DLR) continued to work on ride smoothing and gust alleviation 

through development of the Load Alleviation and Ride Smoothing (LARS) system. The LARS system 

combined an open-loop component, primarily for rigid body motion, and a closed-loop component, 

primarily for damping the elastic wing-bending mode. The open-loop component was similar in function 

to that of the OLGA system. The closed-loop component used wingtip and fuselage accelerometers as 

feedback to damp the first wing bending motion. The closed-loop component operated within a narrow 

frequency range, and used the same control actuator as the open-loop system. The LARS system was 

flight-tested on the Advanced Technologies Testing Aircraft (ATTAS). Similar results to the OLGA flight 

results were obtained: a 10-dB reduction in vertical acceleration response, and the wing bending 

oscillation was damped and the overshoot was reduced by 20 percent (Hahn & Konig, 1992).

The Aerovironment, Inc. (Monrovia, California) Helios unmanned aircraft sustained catastrophic 

structural failure due to high dynamic loads associated with an unstable pitch oscillation that occurred 

during persistent flight with high wing bending (Noll, Brown, Perez-Davis, Ishmael, Tiffany, & Gaier, 

2004). An encounter with turbulence initiated the event that ultimately resulted in loss of the aircraft. 

Analysis of the Helios aircraft showed very high sensitivity to encounters with even modest turbulence.

 

1 Dornier GMBH and DFVLR: Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt für Luft- und Raumfahrt, or 

German Test and Research Institute for Aviation and Space Flight (now DLR) (Deutsches Zentrum für 

Luft- und Raumfahrt, formally “German Center for Aviation and Space Flight;” the shorter translation 

"German Aerospace Center" is more commonly used in English-language publications).
9

Flight research has also included the testing of sensors for use in gust alleviation systems. An optical 

sensing technology referred to as LIDAR (light detection and ranging) has been developed and 

flight-tested to detect atmospheric turbulence ahead of an aircraft. Control systems and their effectors 

having some degree of lag, early detection of gusts provides ideal lead time before the turbulence disturbs 

the aircraft. Bogue (Bogue & Jentink, 2004) provides a good historical background on optical airflow 

measuring devices and covers flight test examples as early as 1971. To this point, LIDAR sensors have 

been tested in flight but not integrated with controls during flight test for gust load alleviation. In 

(Soreide, Bogue, Ehernberger, Hannon, & Bowdle, 2000) a coherent LIDAR system was tested up to 

25,000 ft on a Lockheed Electra L-188C aircraft. Axial velocity measurements were made along a single 

line of sight (versus over a scanned area) up to 8 km (4.97 mi) ahead of the aircraft. Taking the lead time 

into account, the measurements correlated well with the local sensor data collected onboard the aircraft. 

In (Rabadan, Schmitt, Pistner, & Rehm, 2010), a more advanced LIDAR system was flight-tested on an 

Airbus A340-300 up to 39,000 ft in clear air, rain, dense clouds, and ice rain. Many LIDAR systems, 

including the system in (Soreide, Bogue, Ehernberger, Hannon, & Bowdle, 2000), are dependent on a 

high density of aerosols in the local atmosphere for their function. Higher altitudes and some areas around 

the globe do not have this concentration of aerosols. For this reason, a direct-detection short-pulse 

ultraviolet Doppler LIDAR was developed and flight-tested which can measure disturbance in 

aerosol-depleted regions by using molecular (not aerosol) backscatter. The system measures disturbances

50 meters ahead of the aircraft, providing 300 milliseconds of lead time, which is stated as sufficient 

based on the angular velocity and the maximum deflection required by the ailerons. Four line-of-sight 

measurements (±10° vertically and horizontally from the nose) are taken at 60 Hz, which provides more 

than enough information for 3D airspeed vector detection at 15 Hz. The LIDAR data compared very well 

with forward projections of the aircraft true-airspeed sensor along the four line-of-site directions when 

considering the attitude of the aircraft.

3.3 Wind Tunnel Experiments

Various approaches to gust load alleviation have been tested in wind tunnels. In most cases, 

experimental results show some level of load alleviation in the presence of simulated gusts. Each test 

described within this section uses different wind tunnel models, control techniques, and metrics to 

measure load alleviation, making it impractical to compare the performance from one test to another. For 

these reasons, the magnitude of gust alleviation is not included in the discussion.

3.3.1 Gust Generation Techniques

Various gust generation techniques have been employed by way of wind tunnel testing. Discrete 

“sharp-edged gusts” and “gradient gusts” have been generated in wind tunnel testing using “screening and 

perforated plates” (Mickleboro, 1948). Continuous sinusoidal gusts are commonly generated by way of

oscillating vanes or airfoils mounted upstream of the wind tunnel test section. The transonic Dynamics 

Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) is equipped with such a system, known as the 

airstream oscillation system (Silva, Vartio, Shimko, Kvaternik, Eure, & Scott, 2006) (Scott, Castelluccio, 

Coulson, & Heeg, 2011). Continuous, random gust disturbances can be generated by use of a flapping 

banner (Abel, Perry, & Newsom, 1982). The gust characteristics resulting from the flapping banner can 

be modified by using different widths of banners and also two-dimensional grids (or screens) that have 

adjustable spacing between the vertical and horizontal members (Horikawa & Saito, 1986).

3.3.2 Recent Wind Tunnel Studies

Numerous wind tunnel studies were conducted prior to the 1980s; this report summarizes the results 

of a number of select, significant wind tunnel studies conducted after 1980. One early study in the 1980s 

conducted at NASA LaRC found that a control law designed for flutter suppression also reduced wing 
10

loads due to gusts (Perry, 1981) (Abel, Perry, & Newsom, 1982). Two control laws were developed for an 

aeroelastically-scaled semispan model of a McDonnell Douglas DC-10. The first control law was 

developed using the aerodynamic energy method and the second using optimal control theory (Abel, 

Perry, & Newsom, 1982). An accelerometer was installed near the tip of the wing to provide vertical 

acceleration feedback. The wing’s aileron was the only control effector. Strain bridges measured the 

bending and torsional loads on the wing (Perry, 1981) (Abel, Perry, & Newsom, 1982). By adding 

turbulence response experiments to the test plan, the first control law showed evidence of gust load 

alleviation, which was most likely due to it having more filter-mode damping than the second control law

(Abel, Perry, & Newsom, 1982).

A study conducted at Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Japan) using a model 1/9-scale transport wing 

with aspect ratio of 10.5 showed bending moment reduction over a range of frequencies using a full state 

GLA control law (Horikawa & Saito, 1986). An arrangement of sensors and one effector (a single aileron) 

similar to that used in the NASA LaRC study was utilized. A similar test was also conducted, with three 

control surface configurations, including an inner aileron, an outer aileron, and a leading edge control 

surface, all located near the outboard section of the wing, using the same wing design (Matsuzaki, 

Matsushita, Miyazawa, & Ueda, 1989). Each surface was tested independently to determine its individual 

effectiveness on GLA performance. Optimal control theory was employed to minimize the mechanical 

energy in the elastic wing and the actuator command. Minimization of the first mode was the primary 

objective of the study. The results showed that the leading edge surface was not as efficient in GLA

compared to the other configurations. In comparing the inner and outer ailerons, it was observed that the 

outer aileron suppressed the first mode better than did the inner aileron; however, it was also observed 

that the inner aileron was better at suppressing the second mode. Thus, the placement of control effectors 

with respect to modal node lines largely dictates their effectiveness in alleviating dynamic responses.

A series of wind tunnel studies characterizing the system response and active control characteristics 

of two SensorCraft (Air Force Research Lab) concepts have been conducted and are fairly well published.

Two variations of conceptual SensorCraft models have been tested: a flying wing concept and a joined 

wing concept (Vartio, Shimko, & Tilmann, 2005) (Scott, Castelluccio, Coulson, & Heeg, 2011). Both 

concepts rely on active control for rigid body stability, load alleviation, and structural mode control to 

suppress unstable aeroelastic modes. Both concepts have been tested with aeroelastically-scaled wind 

tunnel models with rigid mounting and mountings that allow both pitch and plunge motion.

The flying wing concept wind tunnel model was a semispan model utilizing one leading edge control 

surface at the outboard wing section and four trailing edge surfaces along the span of the wing. The joined 

wing concept wind tunnel model was a full span model utilizing 13 trailing edge control surfaces: three 

on each main wing, three on each joined wing, and on the vertical tail support. Both models were 

similarly instrumented with accelerometers and gyroscopes for inertial measurement, strain gages for 

stress measurements, and a means of measuring the aerodynamic inflow (the flying wing tests used a 

traditional vane mounted upstream from the model; the joined wing model incorporated several leading 

edge stagnation point, or LESP, sensors along the leading edge of the model). Both models can be either 

rigidly mounted or mounted on pitch and plunge devices.

An optimal estimator and regulator (linear quadratic Gaussian) were designed to control the rigid 

body and flexible structural modes of the flying wing SensorCraft model (Vartio, Shimko, & Tilmann, 

2005). The test was conducted with the wind tunnel model rigidly mounted to the wind tunnel wall 

(without pitch and plunge freedom). Overall, the test demonstrated successful active control: 

simultaneously on the model, the wing root bending moment was reduced, the first and second bending 

modes were dampened, and the pitch moment was controlled. While the results of the test showed that 
11

bending moment was greatly reduced, the measured reduction did not meet the a priori prediction; the 

authors suggest that deficient modeling of control surface effectiveness, actuator characteristics, and gust 

field are the principle causes of the unmatched results. Bending moment alleviation at the wing root using 

only the leading edge and outboard trailing edge control surface is feasible and achieved nearly the same 

bending moment reduction as using all the control surfaces, although larger surface deflections were 

required with fewer surfaces. Analytical predictions indicated that phase lead in the gust feedback would 

improve the ability of the control system to alleviate loads; however, the experimental results were 

inconclusive due to problems with the leading edge control surface actuator. 

In a follow-on series of tests with the flying wing semi-span SensorCraft the model was mounted on a 

pitch and plunge device to allow the model to exhibit some rigid body modes (Vartio, Shaw, & Vetter, 

2008). This series of tests evaluated controllers similar to those tested in the previous series. In this series, 

varying levels of explicit load alleviation in response to gust were evaluated, as well as the effect of using 

only the leading edge and outboard trailing edge control surface. The test found that incorporation of an 

explicit gust alleviation function reduced the critical wing bending moment significantly, and, similar to 

the previous study, found that use of only the outboard control surfaces was feasible for all objectives.

Fourteen different control laws were tested and evaluated in a series of wind tunnel tests using the

joined-wing SensorCraft wind tunnel model (Scott, Castelluccio, Coulson, & Heeg, 2011). Classical 

control theory was used to develop the GLA control laws based on previous wind tunnel parameter 

identification and characterization tests. The best-performing control law utilized three strain gage inputs 

as feedback and four surfaces for control; this controller resulted in a 50-percent decrease in structural 

response while maintaining adequate robustness.

Leading edge stagnation point sensors were also employed on both SensorCraft wind tunnel models

to determine their performance as feedback for gust alleviation (Mangalam, Mangalam, & Flick, 2008) 

(Scott, Castelluccio, Coulson, & Heeg, 2011). The use of LESP sensors enables “direct access to the 

aerodynamic forcing function, its magnitude and direction at any span station, and more importantly, 

provides control input with valuable lead-time compared to the structural response obtained with 

conventional techniques” (Mangalam, Mangalam, & Flick, 2008). The results within this work showed 

that additional feedback from the LESP sensors enabled a reduction in bending moment and a decrease in 

required control power when compared to the performance of only using inertial sensors.

Active control of the Semi-span Super-Sonic Transport (S4T) wind tunnel model was recently 

evaluated in a series of wind tunnel tests for the purpose of demonstrating flutter suppression, gust load 

alleviation, and ride quality enhancement (Silva, et al., 2011) (Moulin, et al, 2010). The S4T is an 

aeroelastically-scaled semispan model of a supersonic transport aircraft. The model contains three active 

control surfaces: a ride control vane near the nose, a midspan aileron, and an all-moving horizontal tail. 

Strain gages are used to measure the bending, torsion, and shear loads. Several control laws were 

developed, tested, and evaluated to assess their ability to singly and simultaneously manage flutter 

suppression, gust load alleviation, and ride quality enhancement. Silva reports limited success in meeting 

all objectives of control due to safety concerns regarding the model; he also provides references to 

numerous reports on the particulars of the control systems that were tested. 

Fuzzy logic control was employed to demonstrate gust load alleviation on a high-aspect-ratio wing 

model with two control surfaces: an inner and an outer aileron (Shao, Wu, Yang, & Chen, 2010). The 

model was a semispan test wing rigidly mounted to the wind tunnel wall. An accelerometer was mounted 

in the wingtip for use as feedback in the control system. The control system reduced the gust response by 

20 to 27 percent and performed similarly with both random and sinusoidal gusts.
12

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Atmospheric modeling and aircraft response modeling are relatively mature and accurate

technologies. Early wind tunnel experiments and test aircraft have shown a feasible path forward in

understanding and managing gust encounters. Initial application of the active load alleviation 

technologies were implemented either to fix a developing problem or to provide enhancements to existing 

aircraft. Use of active control for mitigating the impact of atmospheric disturbances has matured to 

become a crucial element during the design of new aircraft. Weight savings have been realized through 

application of active control technologies to mitigate the detrimental effects of gust and turbulence 

encounters. 

Various sensors, effectors, and control laws have been used and tested in relevant environments.

Typically, atmospheric disturbances, or the structural response to gust, are measured by an air data system 

or inertial sensors or both. New technologies, such as leading edge stagnation point and light detecting 

and ranging, provide more lead time and are gaining acceptance through systematic development and 

testing. Control effectors typically include designated control surfaces, such as canards or a centerline 

control surface; or conventional, multipurpose effectors, such as flaps and ailerons. No single control law

synthesis technique or methodology has proven superior; rather, many techniques have been 

demonstrated successfully. Various studies have also shown that closed-loop control intended for other 

purposes, such as an autopilot or flutter suppression, can indirectly help alleviate gust loads and improve 

flying qualities.

As aircraft have been refined and optimized for their missions, and the ability to predict and model 

those aircraft has improved, aircraft structures have become more efficient and the separation between 

rigid body and flexible modes reduced. This trend is anticipated to continue, leading to new challenges of 

controlling more flexible, lighter-weight aircraft through atmospheric disturbances. The separate 

objectives of flutter suppression, gust load alleviation, and flying qualities will need to be treated and 

addressed simultaneously. The Helios mishap exemplifies the challenges at the extreme of the present 

trend. Additional sensing and actuation requirements, beyond those already realized in current operational 

aircraft, will need to be developed. It is likely that the higher bandwidth control effectors will also be 

required for some applications. Control surface actuation will have to be coordinated to manipulate both 

rigid body and flexible modes that are observed simultaneously, without unintentionally exciting or 

aggravating other modes. Overall, multidisciplinary approaches to aircraft design will be crucial.
13

References

Abel, I., Perry III, B., & Newsom, J. R. (1982). Comparison of Analytical and Wind-Tunnel Results for 

Flutter and Gust Response of a Transport Wing with Active Controls. NASA TP-2010.

Bisplinghoff, R. L., Ashley, H., & Halfman, R. L. (1996). Aeroelasticity. Mineola, New York: Dover 

Publications.

Bogue, R. K., & Jentink, H. W. (2004). Optical Air Flow Measurements in Flight.

NASA/TP-2004-210735.

Bohret, H., Krag, B., & Skudridakis, J. (1985). “OLGA - An Open Loop Gust Alleviation System.”

Britt, R. T., Volk, J. A., Dreim, D. R., & Applewhite, K. A. (1999). “Aeroservoelastic Characteristics of 

the B-2 Bomber and Implications for Future Large Aircraft.”

Bureau of Air Commerce. (1937). Civil Air Regulations, Part 04 - Airplane Airworthiness. 

Burris, P. M., & Bender, M. A. (1969). Aircraft Load Alleviation and Mode Stabilization (LAMS) - B-52 

System Analysis, Synthesis, and Design. AFFDL-TR-68-161.

Civil Aeronautics Board. (1956). Civil Air Regulations Amendment 4b-3, Airplane Airworthiness -

Transport Categories.

Civil Aeronautics Board. (1934). Aeronautics Bulletin Amendment 7a, Airworthiness Requirements for 

Aircraft. 

Crimaldi, J. P., Britt, R. T., & Rodden, W. P. (1993). “Response of B-2 Aircraft to Nonuniform Spanwise 

Turbulence.” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 652-659.

Disney, T. E. (1975). “The C-5A Active Load Alleviation System.” AIAA Paper No. 75-991.

Eichenbaum, F. D. (1975). “Evaluation of 3-D Turbulence Techniques for Designing Aircraft.”

Etkin, B. (1980). “The Turbulent Wind and Its Effect on Flight.” AIAA-80-1836.

Federal Aviation Administration. (1996). Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25 - Airworthiness 

Standards: Transport Category Airplanes. 

Federal Aviation Administration. (1980). Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25 - Appendix G -

Continuous Gust Design Criteria.

Federal Aviation Administration. (1996). Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25 - Final Rule. Docket No. 

27902.

Globalsecurity.org. (n.d.). “C-5.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5a.htm. 

Accessed March 7, 2012.
14

Hahn, K. -U., & Konig, R. (1992). “ATTAS Flight Test and Simulation Results of the Advanced Gust 

Management System LARS.” AIAA-92-4343-CP.

Hargrove, W. J. (1976). “The C-5A Active Lift Distribution Control System.”

Hoblit, F. M. (1988). Gust Loads on Aircraft: Concepts and Applications. American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Honlinger, H., Zimmermann, H., Sensburg, O., & Becker, J. (1995). Structural Aspects of Active Control 

Technology. AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium. Turin, Italy.

Horikawa, H., & Saito, K. (1986). “A Wind Tunnel Study of Active Control Technology on a High 

Aspect Ratio Wing.” AIAA-86-0956.

Johnston, J. F. (1979). Accelerated Development and Flight Evaluation of Active Controls Concepts for 

Subsonic Transport Aircraft - Volume 1 - Load Alleviation/Extended Span Development and Flight Tests.

Lockheed-California Company.

Kaminski-Morrow, D. (2008, 11 20). “Airbus exploits A320 load-alleviation to offer higher MTOW.”

From Flight Global: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-exploits-a320-load-alleviation-tooffer-higher-mtow-319049/ . Accessed March 8, 2012.

Mangalam, A. S., Mangalam, S. M., & Flick, P. M. (2008). “Unsteady Aerodynamic Observable for Gust 

Load Alleviation.” AIAA 2008-1725.

Matsuzaki, Y., Ueda, T., Miyazawa, Y., & Matsushita, H. (1989). “Gust Load Alleviation of a TransportType Wing: Test and Analysis. Journal of Aircraft, vol. 26, no. 24, pp. 322-327.

Mickleboro, H. C. (1948). Evaluation of a Fixed Spoiler as a Gust Alleviator. NACA Technical Note No. 

1753.

Moulin, B., Ritz, E., Chen, P. C., Lee, D. H., & Zhang, Z. (2010). CFD-based Control for Flutter 

Suppression, Gust Load Alleviation, and Ride Quality Enhancement for the S4T Model. 51st 

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. Orlando, 

Florida.

Noll, T. E., Brown, J. M., Perez-Davis, M. E., Ishmael, S. D., Tiffany, G. C., & Gaier, M. (2004). 

Investigation of the Helios Prototype Aircraft Mishap Volume I Mishap Report. 

Norris, G., & Wagner, M. (2005). Airbus A380: Superjumbo of the 21st Century. Zenith Press, St. Paul, 

Minnesota.

Norris, G., & Wagner, M. (2009). Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Zenith Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Payne, C. B. (1953). A Flight Investigation of Some Effects of Automatic Control on Gust Loads. NACA

RM L53E14a.

Perry III, B. (1981). Qualitative Comparison of Calculated Turbulence Responses With Wind-Tunnel 

Measurements for a DC-10 Derivative Wing With an Active Control System. NASA TM-83144.
15

Phillips, W. H. (1957). Loads Implications of Gust-Alleviation Systems. NACA Technical Note 4056.

Rabadan, G. J., Schmitt, N. P., Pistner, T., & Rehm, W. (2010). “Airborne Lidar for Automatic 

Feedforward Control of Turbulent In-Flight Phenomena.” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 392-403.

Scott, R. C., Castelluccio, M. A., Coulson, D. A., & Heeg, J. (2011). “Aeroservoelastic Wind-Tunnel 

Tests of a Free-Flying, Joined-Wing SensorCraft Model for Gust Load Alleviation.” AIAA-2011-1960.

Shao, K., Wu, Z., Yang, C., Chen, L., & Lv, B. (2010). “Design of an Adaptive Gust Response 

Alleviation Control System: Simulations and Experiments.” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 47, no. 3, 

pp. 1022-1029.

Silva, W. A., Perry III, B., Florance, J. R., Sanetrik, M. D., Wieseman, C. D., Stevens, W. L., et al. 

(2011). “An Overview of Preliminary Computational and Experimental Results for the Semi-Span 

Super-Sonic Transport (S4T) Wind-Tunnel Model. IFASD-2011-147.

Silva, W. A., Vartio, E., Shimko, A., Kvaternik, R. G., Eure, K. W., & Scott, R. C. (2006). “Development 

of Aeroservoelastic Analytical Models and Gust Load Alleviation Control Laws of a SensorCraft 

Wind-Tunnel Model Using Measured Data.” AIAA 2006-1935.

Soreide, D. C., Bogue, R. K., Ehernberger, L. J., Hannon, S. M., & Bowdle, D. A. (2000). “Airborne 

Coherent LIDAR for Advanced In-flight Measurements (ACLAIM) Flight Testing of the LIDAR 

Sensor.” American Meteorological Society 9th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace 

Meteorology. Orlando, Florida.

Stull, R. B., & Ahrens, C. D. (2000). Meteorology for Scientists and Engineers. Brooks/Cole, Pacific 

Grove, California.

Vartio, E. J., Shaw, E. E., & Vetter, T. (2008). “Gust Load Alleviation Flight Control System Design for a 

SensorCraft Vehicle.” AIAA 2008-7192.

Vartio, E., Shimko, A., Tilmann, C. P., & Flick, P. M. (2005). “Structural Modal Control and Gust Load 

Alleviation for a Sensorcraft Concept.” AIAA 2005-1946.

Wilson, E. B. (1916). Report on Behavior of Aeroplanes in Gusts, Part II - Theory of an Aeroplane 

Encountering Gusts. NACA-TR-1.

Wright, J. R., & Cooper, J. E. (2007). Introduction to Aircraft Aeroelasticity and Loads. John Wiley and 

Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England.

Wykes, J. H., Mori, A. S., & Borland, C. J. (1972). “B-1 Structural Mode Control System.” AIAA Paper 

No. 72-772.