X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability Demonstrator

The X-31 was the first international experimental aircraft development program in which the U. S. participated. Two X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrator aircraft were designed and con­structed by Rockwell International Corporation’s North American Aircraft Division and Deutsche Aerospace. Assigned U. S. Navy bureau Nos. 164584 and 164585, the aircraft would be used to obtain data that could be applied to the design of highly maneuverable next-generation fighters. During the conceptual phase of the program, the personnel examined the application of EFM technologies and defined the require­ments for the demonstrator aircraft. Next, the preliminary design of the demonstrator and the manufacturing approach were defined. Technical experts from the U. S. Navy, German Federal Ministry of Defense, and

NASA evaluated all aspects of the design. Detail design and fabrication followed, with the two aircraft being assembled at the Rockwell International (now Boeing) facility at Palmdale, CA. Both aircraft were required to fly a limited flight-test program at Rockwell. The first aircraft flew its first flight on October 11, 1990, piloted by Rockwell chief test pilot Ken Dyson. The second aircraft made its first flight on January 19, 1991, with Deutsche Aerospace chief test pilot Dietrich Seeck at the controls.[1235]

The X-31 had a digital fly-by-wire flight control system that included four digital flight control computers with no analog or mechanical backup. Three synchronous main computers drove the flight control surfaces. The fourth computer served as a tiebreaker in case the three main computers produced conflicting commands. Three thrust vectoring paddles were mounted on the X-31’s aft fuselage adjacent to the engine nozzle. Directed by the DFBW flight control system, the paddles were moved in and out of the exhaust flow with the resultant thrust vectoring augmenting the aerodynamic control surfaces in pitch and yaw control to improve maneuverability. Made of an advanced carbon-fiber-rein­forced composite material, the paddles could sustain temperatures of up to 1,500 degrees Celsius. The X-31 also had movable forward canards for pitch control. As a result of controllability issues identified during the X-31 flight-test program, fixed strakes between the trailing edge of the wing and the engine exhaust were incorporated. They provided additional nose-down pitch control at very high angles of attack. Another fix that was found neces­sary was the addition of small fixed-nose strakes to help control sideslip.[1236]

During flight-test operations at the Rockwell Aerospace facility, the two X-31s flew 108 test missions, validating the use of thrust vectoring to compensate for loss of aerodynamic control at high angles of attack and expanding the poststall envelope up to 40 degrees angle of attack. The poststall envelope refers to the region in which the aircraft dem­onstrated an ability to maintain controlled flight beyond the normal X-31 stall angle of attack of 30 degrees. X-31 flight operations moved to NASA Dryden in February 1992, with the first flight under International Test Organization (ITO) management occurring in April 1992. The ITO initially included about 110 people from NASA, the U. S. Navy, the U. S. Air Force, Rockwell Aerospace, the Federal Republic of Germany, and

Daimler-Benz. The ITO staff was eventually reduced to approximately 60 people. Overall management of the X-31 program came under by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with NASA responsi­ble for flight-test operations, aircraft maintenance, and research engi­neering after the project moved to Dryden. The ITO director and NASA’s X-31 project manager at Dryden was Gary Trippensee. Pilots included NASA pilot Rogers Smith, U. S. Navy Cdr. Al Groves, German pilots Karl Lang and Dietrich Seeck, Rockwell International pilot Fred Knox, and Air Force Flight Test Center pilot Lt. Col. Jim Wisneski. By July 1992 the X-31 flight envelope was being expanded in preparation for mili­tary utility evaluations that would fly the aircraft against nonthrust vec­tored fighters to evaluate effectiveness in simulated air combat. Thrust vectoring effectiveness at supersonic speed was evaluated out to Mach

1. 28 at an altitude of 35,000 feet.

In early flight-testing, the X-31 flight control system went into a reversionary mode four times in the first nine flights because of dis­agreement between the two air data sources.[1237] The X-31 was very sen­sitive to sideslip. This caused difficulties for the flight control system at higher angles of attack. Below 30 degrees, the nose boom updated the inertial navigation unit with air data. Above angles of attack of 30 degrees, the inertial navigation unit began calculating erroneous side­slip angles as a result of changes in the relative wind vector. To resolve this problem, a so-called Kiel probe replaced the standard NASA Pitot tube to calculate airflow. The Kiel probe was bent 10 degrees downward from the standard pitot configuration. In addition, the sideslip vane was rotated downward 20 degrees relative to the nose boom to compensate for a yawing oscillation that occurred at an angle of attack of 62 degrees. These changes resulted in accurate air data being provided to the iner­tial navigation unit throughout the X-31 flight envelope with false side­slip readings at high angles of attack eliminated.[1238]

Throughout the process of envelope expansion, many modifications to the flight control laws were required because actual aerodynamics of the aircraft were somewhat different from wind tunnel predictions. When the pilots started flying at angles of attack above 50 degrees, they
encountered erratic lateral lurching movements. In an attempt to coun­ter this phenomenon, narrow, 1/4-inch-wide strips of grit were attached to the sides of the nose boom and the radome. These effectively changed the vortex flow across the forward fuselage of the aircraft, reducing the randomness of the lurches and enabling expansion of the flight envelope to the design angle of attack limit of 70 degrees at 1 g. However, pilots encountered unintentional departures from controlled flight as the air­craft approached poststall angles of attack of 60 degrees during Split-S maneuvers.[1239] The asymmetric yawing moment encountered during this maneuver was beyond the capability of the thrust vectoring system to maintain adequate control.[1240] Testing in the Langley full-scale wind tunnel resulted in nose strakes and a modified slightly blunter nose tip design that were fitted to the two aircraft, allowing resumption of the flight-test program. The nose strakes were 6/10 of an inch wide and 20 inches long and forced more symmetric transition of forebody vortexes. The blunted nose tip reduced yaw asymmetries.[1241]

Poststall pitch control effectiveness, especially with the X-31 center of gravity at the aft allowable design location, was initially marginal.[1242] In these high-angle-of-attack conditions, test pilots rated aircraft response as unsatisfactory. NASA Langley conducted wind tunnel tests of various approaches intended to provide increased nose-down pitch control at high angles of attack. Sixteen different modifications were rapidly tested in the full-scale wind tunnel, with Langley recommending that a pair of strakes 6 inches wide and 65 inches long be mounted along the sides of the aft fuselage to assist in nose-down recovery. These were incorporated on the X-31, with subsequent flight-testing confirming greatly improved nose-down pitch control.[1243] Positive control at 70 degrees angle of attack with a controlled roll around the aircraft velocity vector was demonstrated November 6, 1992. On April 29, 1993, a minimum radius 180-degree post-

stall "Herbst Maneuver” was accomplished for the first time.[1244] During the final phase of evaluation, the X-31s engaged in simulated air combat sce­narios against F/A-18s. During these scenarios, the X-31s were able to outmaneuver the F/A-18s purely through use of poststall maneuvers and without use of thrust vectoring. X-31 test pilots did not support trading off basic fighter characteristics to acquire poststall maneuvering capa­bilities but concluded that improved pitch pointing and velocity vector maneuvering possible with thrust vector control did provide additional options during close-in combat. Thrust vectoring, combined with fully controllable poststall maneuvering, enabled X-31 pilots to position their aircraft in ways that adversary pilots could not counter, but it had to be used selectively and rapidly to be effective.[1245]

In 1994, software was installed in the X-31 to simulate the feasi­bility of stabilizing a tailless aircraft at both subsonic and supersonic speed using thrust vectoring. The aircraft was modified to enable the pilot to destabilize the aircraft with the rudder to lower stability levels to those that would have been encountered if the aircraft had a reduced – size vertical tail. For this purpose, the rudder control surface was used to cancel the stabilizing effects of the vertical tail, and yaw thrust vec­tor commands were applied by the flight control system to restabilize and control the aircraft. The X-31 was flown in the quasi-tailless mode supersonically at 38,000 feet at Mach 1.2, and maneuvers involving roll and yaw doublets, 30-degree bank-to-bank rolls, and windup turns to 2 g were flown. During subsonic testing, simulated precision carrier land­ing approaches and ground attack profiles were successfully evaluated. The quasi-tailless flight-test experiment demonstrated the feasibility of tailless and reduced-tail highly maneuverable fighter/attack aircraft designs. Such designs could have reduced drag and lower weight as well as reduced radar and visual detectability. It determined that thrust vec­toring is a viable flight control effector that can replace the functions provided by a vertical tail and rudder control surface. Potential disad-

vantages include the added weight, complexity, and reliability issues associated with a thrust vectoring system. Additionally, flight condi­tions that require lower engine thrust settings (such as approach and landing) may necessitate provision of additional aerodynamic high – drag devices to enable high-thrust settings to be maintained, ensuring adequate thrust vectoring control. Early integration of such consider­ations into the overall design process, along with an increased level of interaction between propulsion and flight control systems, is required in order to derive the maximum benefit from reduced or tailless aircraft that rely on thrust vectoring for stability and control.[1246]

The No. 1 X-31 aircraft was lost on its 292nd flight on January 19, 1995. German test pilot Karl Lang had just finished a series of test maneu­vers and was in the process of recovering back to a landing at Edwards. At an altitude of 20,000 feet, he observed discrepancies in the air data dis­plays along with a master caution light. The aircraft then began a series of diverging pitch oscillations and became uncontrollable. Lang ejected safely at an altitude of 18,000 feet, and the aircraft crashed in an unpop­ulated desert area just north of Edwards. The crash was determined to have resulted from an unanticipated single-point failure in the nose – mounted Kiel probe that provided critical airspeed and altitude data to the aircraft flight control system computers. These data were critical to safe flight, yet the Kiel probe did not include provision for electrical de­icing, presumably because the aircraft would only be flown in clear desert weather conditions. However, during descent to recovery back to Edwards, ice accumulated in the unheated X-31 pitot tube, resulting in the flight control system automatically configuring the aircraft control surfaces for what it assumed were lower airspeed conditions. Unanticipated move­ments of the flight control surfaces caused the aircraft to begin oscillating about all axes followed by an uncontrolled pitch-up to an angle of attack of over 90 degrees.[1247] The subsequent X-31 accident investigation board recommended that training be conducted on the system safety analy­sis process, that procedures be implemented to ensure that all test team members receive configuration change notices, and that improvements be made in the remaining X-31 to prevent similar single-point failures.[1248]

A panel that included former Dryden Research Center director Ken Szalai met at Dryden in early 2004 to review the X-31 accident. The panel noted that the primary contributing factor was the installation of the unheated Kiel probe in place of the original heated Pitot tube. The lack of electrical de-icing capability on the Kiel probe had not been considered a safety risk because X-31 mission rules prohibited flight in precipitation or clouds. However, there was no stipulation specifically restricting flight during potential icing conditions, despite simulations that showed icing of the Pitot static system could lead to loss of con­trol.[1249] Information had been distributed among the X-31’s test pilots and flight-test engineers explaining the Pitot tube change, but a formal process was not in place to ensure that everyone fully understood the implications of the change. Test pilot Lang had noticed anomalies on his cockpit instrumentation and, assuming the presence of icing, told the control room that he was switching on Pitot heat. Shortly afterward, he advised that he was leaving the Pitot heat on for descent and approach to landing. The ground controller then told Lang that the pitot heat switch in the cockpit was not functional. Discrepancies between the X-31’s air­speed and altitude readouts were being observed in the control room, but that information was not shared with the entire control room staff. There was a redundant source of air data and a pilot-selectable alterna­tive control mode that could have saved the aircraft if better commu­nications had existed. Dryden X-31 project manager Gary Trippensee noted that complacency is the enemy of success in flight research; prior to the accident, 523 successful X-31 research missions had been flown.[1250]

In 2000, the remaining X-31 was brought back from long-term storage at NASA Dryden, where it had been since 1995, and reconfig­ured for another round of flight-testing for the Vectoring, Extremely Short Takeoff and Landing Control and Tailless Operation Research (VECTOR) program. This program would explore the use of thrust vec­toring for extremely short takeoff and landing (ESTOL), with a focus on the aircraft carrier environment. An international Cooperative Test Organization was created for the VECTOR program. U. S. partic- ipants/partners were the Navy, Boeing, General Electric, and NASA.[1251]

The Swedish government was represented by Volvo and SAAB, with the German Ministry of Defense and DASA (Daimler-Benz consor­tium) from Germany. The X-31 aircraft was modified to incorporate a Swedish RM-1 engine, the same powerplant used in the Saab JAS-39 Gripen fighter.[1252] On February 24, 2001, flown by U. S. Navy Cdr. Vivian Ragusa, the upgraded X-31 took to the air for the first time from Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River.[1253] German test pilot Rudiger "Rudy” Knopfel, U. S. Marine Corps Maj. Cody Allee, and Navy Lt. J. R. Hansen would fly most of the subsequent ESTOL test program.[1254] The VECTOR X-31 went on to accomplish over 2 years’ of flight-testing, culminating in the final ESTOL flight by Maj. Allee on April 29, 2003.

From April 22 to 29, 2003, the VECTOR X-31 flew 11 test flights, during which fully automated, high-angle-of-attack approaches to land­ing were conducted. The automated flight control system utilized inputs from a special Global Positioning System (GPS)-based navigation sys­tem to maneuver the aircraft to a precise spot above the runway. Known as the Integrity Beacon Landing System (IBLS), it was supplemented by two virtual satellites, or "pseudolites,” on both sides of the runway. Precise spatial position and flight attitude data were inputs for the auto­matic approach control and landing system used in the VECTOR X-31. An ESTOL approach began with the pilot flying into the area covered by the pseudolites; after entering an engagement box, the automatic approach and landing system was activated. The aircraft then assumed a high-angle-of-attack approach attitude and followed a curvilinear path to the touchdown point. Just before touchdown, with the thrust vectoring paddles less than 2 feet above the runway, the X-31A auto­matically reduced its attitude back down to the normal 12-degree angle of attack for landing. An autothrottle system from an F/A-18 and a special autopilot developed by the VECTOR team were coupled with the flight control system to provide the integrated flight and propul­sion control capability used to automatically derotate the aircraft from its steep final approach attitude to touchdown attitude at 2 feet above the runway.

On the final flight of the VECTOR program, the angle of attack during landing approach was 24 degrees (twice the angle of attack on a normal landing approach). Approach airspeed was 121 knots, or about 30 per­cent lower than the normal 175 knots, and the resultant landing distance was only 1,700 feet, compared to the normal landing distance of nearly 8,000 feet. Maj. Allee commented on the experience of riding along on a VECTOR X-31 automatic approach and landing: "There are no g forces and you sit leaning somewhat backwards in the ejection seat while the nose is pointing sharply upwards. . . . At angle of attacks greater than 15 degrees the pilot cannot see the runway except on the screen on the right – hand side of the instrument panel. . . . Whereas on a normal landing the landscape flashes by, now everything takes place as if in slow motion.”[1255]

Another technical accomplishment demonstrated during the VECTOR X-31 program was the successful test of an advanced Flush Air Data System (FADS). Based on data collected by a dozen sensors located around the nose of the aircraft, the FADS provided accurate air data, including airspeed, altitude, angle of attack, and yaw angle, to the flight control system at angles of attack up to 70 degrees all the way out to supersonic speed.[1256]

The two X-31 aircraft completed a total of 580 flights, a record for an X-plane program. Of these, 559 were research missions and 21 were flown in Europe in support of the 1995 Paris Air Show. Fourteen pilots from NASA, the U. S. Navy, the U. S. Marine Corps, the U. S. Air Force, the German Air Force, Rockwell International, and Deutsche Aerospace flew the aircraft during the original program at Palmdale and Dryden, with two U. S. pilots (one Navy and one Marine Corps) and a German pilot flying the VECTOR X-31 test program at Patuxent River. The surviv­ing X-31, U. S. Navy Bureau No. 164585, flew 288 times, making its last flight on April 29, 2003. This aircraft is now on display at the Deutsches Museum annex at Oberschleifiheim, near Munich, and it will eventually be returned to the United States. The other X-31, bureau No. 164584, had flown 292 times before it was lost on January 19, 1995.