## 5 Discussion  
The Sections 3 and 4 presented and compared 2 different control systems for the system under study. The flight trajectories, presented at the Figure 10 show that PID-controlled system significantly deviates from the desired mission path. At the same time, the adaptive control system takes less time and follows a more ideal trajectory. Under heavy wind stress, the adaptive system provides relatively quick movement and good repeatability. We can also see that the L1-based adaptive control system has a quicker climb and descent and better braking than the sliding PID-controlled system. The latter occurs because the system  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Characteristic** & **PID** & **L1** \\ \hline \(\mathbf{t_{f}}\) & Flight time & 742.9 s & 679.14 s \\ \hline \(\sigma\) & Stability error rate & 7\% & 1.4\% \\ \hline \(\mathbf{e_{h}}\) & Max horizontal error & 250.8 m (point 3) & 71.13 m (point 3) \\ \hline \(\mathbf{e_{v}}\) & Max vertical error & 28.6 m (point 4) & 2.24 m (point 3) \\ \hline \(\mathbf{t_{sm}}\) & Linefollow setting time & 52.1 s & 16.53 s \\ \hline \(\mathbf{O_{m}}\) & Linefollow overshoot & 11.4 m & No overshoot \\ \hline \(\mathbf{t_{sp}}\) & Setting time (poshold) & 11.2 s & 4.1 s \\ \hline \(\mathbf{e_{p}}\) & Max deviation (poshold) & 5.2 m/s & 3.95 m/s \\ \hline \(\mathbf{O_{PV}}\) & Overshoot (poshold, vertical) & 54\% & 2\% \\ \hline \(\mathbf{t_{sl}}\) & Transition time (launch) & 3.62 s & 4.9 s \\ \hline \(\mathbf{O_{lv}}\) & Velocity overshoot (launch) & 9.8\% & 33\% \\ \hline \(\mathbf{t_{sd}}\) & Transition time (deceleration) & 6.7 s & 5.8 s \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Computational load} & High (due to multi-controller setup) & Moderate (Integrated approach) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Robustness to disturbance} & Moderate (oscillations observed) & High (minimal deviation) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Flight characteristics comparison.  
utilizes the same controller to handle the whole route and hence does not lose time gaining stability like the sliding mode system does.  
The presented system demonstrates that the adaptive system has superior features, such as rate of ascent, position hold precision, and speed maneuvering, in addition to being controllable over the whole spectrum of speeds and under the influence of disrupting effects. The actual traffic control system 1 [29; 30; 31], as a traffic control tool in cities, allows researchers to easily integrate VTOL. While the L1 controllers are involved more in terms of organization and tuning, the overall control system is easier to use since it does not require specific switch logic. Furthermore, the adaptive system outperforms the linear speed \"airplane\" controller in terms of speed control, which might be advantageous for maneuvering.  
It should be also noted that the built adaptive system is less complex. Despite the enormous practical complexity of developing a separate controller, the linear system in sliding mode needs twice as many controllers, as well as the logic for switching between them. This places extra constraints on the flight job. At the same time, an adaptive system does not require this, and gives the user with greater freedom along with superior qualities.