## 2 Materials and Methods
### Wind Tunnel Test  
We applied aerodynamic loads to the wing model by wind tunnel tests. Figure 1 (left) is a photograph of the wing in the closed-circuit wind tunnel. The wind tunnel test section was 6.5 m high and 5.5 m wide. In this study, we defined the wind angle at the wing root as the AoA, and changed the AoA by rotating the turntable. A constant wind speed of 14 m/s and a dynamic pressure of 118.7 Pa were used in the following experiments. Reynolds number was 2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\). A total of 586 test cases were conducted. The details of the test cases are presented in Table 3. Combinations of flap angles were used for each AoA case for the individual test types. The flap angles were maintained for approximately 10 s for each test case, and visual checks were conducted to ensure that there was no vibration on the wing model. In this manner, the measurements were performed without any dynamic effects. In the \"aligned\" test cases, all eight flap angles were set to 0\({}^{\circ}\), and tests were conducted for 15 AoAs ranging from \(-\)4.0-10.0\({}^{\circ}\) with 1\({}^{\circ}\) intervals. In the \"random\" test cases, we aimed to apply 10 pseudo-random combinations of flap angles for 29 AoA cases ranging from \(-\)4.0-10.0\({}^{\circ}\) with 0.5\({}^{\circ}\) intervals. In order to avoid large changes in flap angles in a single test step that could result in large amplitudes of vibrations during testing, constant intervals of the flap angle variations between each test case were set, as presented in Table 4. We aimed to minimize the flap angle variation rate, specifically at the wing tip (i.e., flap 8) where the greatest moments were caused. Figure 4: Lift coefficient versus AoA. Figure 5: Reflected spectra from optical fiber sensors bonded along the main (**a**) and aft (**b**) spars. Figure 6 shows examples of the Flaps 1, 4, and 7 angles for a number of the sequential \"random\" test cases. The flap angles \"rebounded\" within the range \(-15\)-\(15^{\circ}\). The bias remained in individual AoA cases (29 cases), although it was felt that the angle combinations were fully investigated across the 290 \"random\" case measurements. The primary aim of the \"random\" test cases was to obtain sufficient amounts of training data for the subsequent machine learning. In the \"single\" cases, a single flap was moved for eight AoAs ranging from \(-4.0\)-\(10.0^{\circ}\) with \(2.0^{\circ}\) intervals. In the individual AoA cases, we moved a single flap through \(-15.0^{\circ}\), \(-5.0^{\circ}\), \(5.0^{\circ}\), and \(15.0^{\circ}\) while the other flaps remained at \(0^{\circ}\) degrees. This sequence was repeated for all eight flaps. It was anticipated that the \"single\" test cases would highlight the effect of individual flaps on the aerodynamic load distributions. In \"controlled\" cases, a flap angle combination was applied as presented in Table 5. The flap angle combination was designed to reduce the moment while maintaining the lift force. The wing root tended to increase the lift force while the wing tip tended to decrease the moment. Measurements were conducted for 14 AoA cases ranging from \(-4.0\)-\(10.0^{\circ}\) with \(1.0^{\circ}\) intervals. We did not conduct measurements at AoA = \(4.0^{\circ}\) as undamped wing vibration occurred. It was surmised that the vortex around the wing caused the resonance. The \"controlled\" cases were aimed at identifying the optimum load distribution control; therefore, it was regarded as the target data to be identified. The efficiency of the acquisition of the training data is important from the practical point of view. The \"aligned\", \"random\" and \"single\" test cases were designed to enable us to acquire data with simple maneuvers. It was only needed to pre-set the angle increments for single or all flaps between each test case, and the data was obtained automatically in individual test cases. There was no overlapping of the cases.