## 6 Simulation and Test Results
### Energy Consumption Model Validation Tests  
To verify the accuracy of the flight system energy consumption model under real flight conditions, a test platform has been independently developed, as shown in Figure 16. The platform is equipped with a Pixhawk 4 flight controller, a current sensor, and a voltage sensor. The current sensor has a measurement error of \(\pm 0.9\%\), while the voltage sensor's measurement error is mainly due to the voltage divider with a tolerance of 0.1%. Both the current and voltage sensors have a data acquisition frequency of 1 Hz, allowing for one data measurement per second. Under the control of the Pixhawk 4 flight controller, various flight commands were executed on the FPTLIR to measure, record, and analyze related data using an upper computer interface. Specifically, system power was measured by recording the output current and voltage of the FPTLIR's battery during static, horizontal, and vertical flight states under the actual route conditions. Experimental data were then compared with model prediction data to verify model accuracy. Figure 14: Flight mission paths of simulation results. (**a**) Flight on-line mission path; (**b**) flight off-line mission path. Figure 15: Flight energy consumption curve of simulation results. (**a**) Flight on-line energy consumption curve (123 and 456 are acceleration, uniform, and deceleration stages of vertical and horizontal flights); (**b**) Flight off-line energy consumption curve (123 and 456 are the acceleration, uniform, and deceleration stages of horizontal and vertical flights, respectively). As part of the preparatory work prior to line inspections, the flight on-line and off-line missions are usually chosen to be carried out in a relatively stable external environment in order to ensure safety and reliability. When performing the validation tests for the energy consumption model, it is important to simulate the actual outdoor environment during the flight mission as closely as possible. The test site was strategically located between buildings with no obstructions along the flight path to minimize the influence of external factors on the FPTLIR. A constant ambient temperature of 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C was maintained throughout the test period. Initially, a static test was performed with a normal communication link between the FPTLIR and the ground computer, with the propeller not turning, resulting in a quiescent system state. In this state, the total power consumption of the FPTLIR remained stable at 29.7 W, including all open components and sensors. Subsequent experimental measurements ignored the power consumption in this static state. The first flight test involved horizontal constant velocity flights, where FPTLIR flew in straight lines at a fixed altitude of 4 m. Starting from a hovering state at 0 m/s, the velocity was gradually increased in increments of 1 m/s until it reached 16.8 m/s. Each speed level was maintained for 5 s, with data collected every second. Due to site constraints, the tests were completed in batches. Figure 17 shows the instantaneous power measurements at different horizontal speeds and average power values over each 5 s period, together with the corresponding prediction curves based on the energy consumption model of the flight systems. From Figure 17, it can be seen that the power of the FPTLIR shows a decreasing and then increasing trend with increasing speed during horizontal flights at uniform velocities. The average error in predicting the power of the FPTLIR under such conditions is calculated to be approximately 0.1553 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) W with an average relative error rate of approximately 2.56%. The second flight test consisted of several horizontal forward flights at variable velocities. During the test, the FPTLIR was first accelerated in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 4 m. The speed was gradually increased from 0 m/s (hover) to 16.8 m/s with an acceleration of 1 m/s\({}^{2}\). The speed was then gradually reduced with a deceleration of 1 m/s\({}^{2}\). The test was repeated five times.