pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20290 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 💻 cs.RO

Recognition: unknown

Onboard Wind Estimation for Small UAVs Equipped with Low-Cost Sensors: An Aerodynamic Model-Integrated Filtering Approach

Bingchen Cheng , Tielin Ma , Jingcheng Fu , Lulu Tao , Tianhui Guo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords UAV wind estimationextended Kalman filteraerodynamic modellow-cost sensorsonboard computation3D wind vectoradaptive moving average
0
0 comments X

The pith

An extended Kalman filter fuses an aerodynamic model with adaptive averaging to estimate three-dimensional wind on small UAVs from only standard low-cost sensors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a filtering method to estimate both the UAV's flight states and the surrounding wind field in real time. By incorporating the vehicle's aerodynamic equations directly into an extended Kalman filter and adding an adaptive moving average step, the approach avoids any need for dedicated air-flow sensors. A sympathetic reader would care because accurate onboard wind knowledge could let small drones adjust their paths to exploit or avoid wind, saving energy on long missions. Simulation and flight data show the estimates remain usable for both steady breezes and gusts that change over time. The authors also check how sensitive the results are to inaccuracies in the aerodynamic model itself.

Core claim

The central claim is that an EKF integrated with the aerodynamic model and AMAE technique efficiently estimates both steady and time-varying 3D wind vectors without requiring flow angle measurements, using only the low-cost essential onboard sensors required for autonomous flight.

What carries the argument

The Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) integrated with the aerodynamic model and Adaptive Moving Average Estimation (AMAE) technique, which improves the accuracy and smoothness of the wind estimation.

If this is right

  • The method enables real-time onboard wind estimation for energy-efficient flight without additional wind measurement devices.
  • Simulation results demonstrate that the approach works for both steady and time-varying 3D wind vectors.
  • Flight tests confirm the effectiveness of the estimates and the feasibility of onboard computation.
  • Analysis of aerodynamic model accuracy shows the practical impact of model mismatch on estimation errors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the method generalizes, fleets of small UAVs could perform wind-aware routing using only their existing navigation sensors.
  • The same integration of vehicle dynamics into the filter might improve state estimation on other small aircraft where flow sensors are impractical.
  • Systematic examination of error sources during testing provides a starting point for adding robustness against sensor bias or gusts beyond the modeled range.

Load-bearing premise

The aerodynamic model of the UAV is sufficiently accurate that its mismatch with reality does not dominate the wind estimation error.

What would settle it

A controlled flight test that measures actual wind with an independent reference sensor while deliberately introducing 15 percent error into the UAV's lift and drag coefficients; if the wind estimation error stays below the level reported in the paper's nominal tests, the claim holds, but if the error grows proportionally larger the claim fails.

read the original abstract

To enable autonomous wind estimation for energy-efficient flight in small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), this study proposes a method that estimates flight states and wind using only the low-cost essential onboard sensors required for autonomous flight, without relying on additional wind measurement devices. The core of the method includes an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) integrated with the aerodynamic model and an Adaptive Moving Average Estimation (AMAE) technique, which improves the accuracy and smoothness of the wind estimation. Simulation results show that the approach efficiently estimates both steady and time-varying 3D wind vectors without requiring flow angle measurements. The impact of aerodynamic model accuracy on wind estimation errors is also analyzed to assess practical applicability. Flight tests validate the effectiveness of the method and its feasibility for real-time onboard computation. Additionally, uncertainties and error sources encountered during testing are systematically examined, providing a foundation for further refinement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) integrated with a UAV aerodynamic model and an Adaptive Moving Average Estimation (AMAE) technique to estimate 3D wind vectors onboard small UAVs. The method uses only low-cost essential sensors for autonomous flight and does not require flow-angle measurements. It is evaluated via simulations for both steady and time-varying winds, an analysis of aerodynamic model accuracy effects, and real flight tests that also examine uncertainties and confirm real-time onboard feasibility.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would enable practical onboard wind estimation for energy-efficient UAV flight without additional hardware. The manuscript is credited for its simulation results covering time-varying cases, explicit flight-test validation, and dedicated analysis of model-accuracy impact, all of which directly address practical applicability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (simulation results): the claim that the EKF-AMAE approach 'efficiently estimates' both steady and time-varying 3D wind vectors is not supported by any reported quantitative error metrics (RMSE, bias, covariance traces), baseline comparisons, or statistical significance tests, preventing verification of the performance advantage over simpler filters.
  2. [§6] §6 (model-accuracy analysis and flight tests): the sensitivity study of aerodynamic-model mismatch on wind-estimation error does not supply explicit fidelity thresholds (e.g., maximum allowable percentage error in C_L, C_D or side-force coefficients) that keep wind RMSE below the level required for energy-efficient flight; without such bounds the unbiasedness of the EKF remains dependent on an unquantified assumption about model fidelity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§4] The definition and tuning procedure for the AMAE window length and adaptation gain are described only qualitatively; a compact equation or pseudocode block would improve reproducibility.
  2. [§6] Figure captions for the flight-test wind-estimate plots should include the specific wind conditions (mean speed, turbulence intensity) and the sensor suite used in each run.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important areas for strengthening the quantitative rigor of our claims. We agree that additional metrics and explicit thresholds are needed and will incorporate them in the revised manuscript. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (simulation results): the claim that the EKF-AMAE approach 'efficiently estimates' both steady and time-varying 3D wind vectors is not supported by any reported quantitative error metrics (RMSE, bias, covariance traces), baseline comparisons, or statistical significance tests, preventing verification of the performance advantage over simpler filters.

    Authors: We accept this observation. The current manuscript presents simulation results primarily through time-series plots and qualitative statements without tabulated numerical error metrics or direct baseline comparisons in the text. In the revision we will add a dedicated table in §5 reporting RMSE, mean bias, and covariance trace values for the EKF-AMAE estimator under both steady and time-varying wind conditions. We will also include a comparison against a standard EKF without the AMAE component and note any statistically significant differences where the data support it. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§6] §6 (model-accuracy analysis and flight tests): the sensitivity study of aerodynamic-model mismatch on wind-estimation error does not supply explicit fidelity thresholds (e.g., maximum allowable percentage error in C_L, C_D or side-force coefficients) that keep wind RMSE below the level required for energy-efficient flight; without such bounds the unbiasedness of the EKF remains dependent on an unquantified assumption about model fidelity.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the existing sensitivity analysis demonstrates the effect of coefficient errors on wind RMSE but stops short of stating concrete fidelity thresholds. We will extend §6 with an additional subsection that extracts explicit bounds from the sensitivity data—for example, the maximum allowable percentage error in C_L, C_D, and side-force coefficients that keeps 3-D wind RMSE below 0.5 m/s (a level we consider relevant for energy-efficient flight). These thresholds will be reported together with the corresponding model-error percentages and will be cross-referenced to the flight-test results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The EKF fuses an external aerodynamic model (lift/drag/side-force coefficients) with low-cost sensor measurements to attribute force residuals to 3D wind. The model is an independent input whose accuracy is separately sensitivity-analyzed; wind estimates are not used to define or fit the model coefficients. No self-citation chain, fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, or self-definitional step appears in the abstract or described method. Flight-test validation and AMAE smoothing operate on the filter outputs without closing a definitional loop. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The method implicitly assumes a usable aerodynamic model and standard sensor noise characteristics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5464 in / 1092 out tokens · 20688 ms · 2026-05-10T00:42:14.660237+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Minimum fuel powered dynamic soaring of unmanned aerial vehicles utilizing wind gradients,

    J. Zhao Yiyuan and Q. Y. Celia, “Minimum fuel powered dynamic soaring of unmanned aerial vehicles utilizing wind gradients,” Optim. Control Appl. Methods, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 211–233, 2004. DOI: 10.1002/oca.744

    work page doi:10.1002/oca.744 2004

  2. [2]

    Atmospheric flow field models applicable for aircraft endurance extension,

    R. Bencatel, J. Tasso De Sousa, and A. Girard, “Atmospheric flow field models applicable for aircraft endurance extension,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., vol. 61, pp. 1–25, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.03.001 2013

  3. [3]

    Glider soaring via reinforcement learning in the field,

    G. Reddy, J. Wong-Ng, A. Celani, T. J. Sejnowski, and M. Vergassola, “Glider soaring via reinforcement learning in the field,” Nature, vol. 562, no. 7726, pp. 236–239, Oct. 2018. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018- 0533-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018- 2018

  4. [4]

    Optimization of Perching Maneuvers Through Vehicle Morphing,

    M. Wickenheiser Adam, Garcia Ephrahim. “Optimization of Perching Maneuvers Through Vehicle Morphing,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 815–823, 2008. DOI: 10.2514/1.33819

    work page doi:10.2514/1.33819 2008

  5. [5]

    Effect of wing morphing on stability and energy harvesting in albatross dynamic soaring,

    W. Wang, W. An, B. Song, “Effect of wing morphing on stability and energy harvesting in albatross dynamic soaring,” Chin. J. Aeronauti., vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 317–334, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2024.06.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cja.2024.06.013 2024

  6. [6]

    The soaring of birds,

    W. R. Manley, “The soaring of birds,” Nature, vol. 28, no. 713, p. 198, 1883. DOI: 10.1038/028198a0

    work page doi:10.1038/028198a0

  7. [7]

    Rendezvous Trajectory Planning for Air-Launched UAV Swarms Using Wind Energy,

    X. Wang, T. Ma, and L. Zhang, “Rendezvous Trajectory Planning for Air-Launched UAV Swarms Using Wind Energy,” IEEE Access, vol. 12,168531– 168546, 2024., DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3492200

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2024.3492200 2024

  8. [8]

    Revealing principles of autonomous thermal soaring in windy conditions using vulture-inspired deep reinforcement-learning,

    Y. Flato, R. Harel, A. Tamar, R. Nathan, and T. Beatus, “Revealing principles of autonomous thermal soaring in windy conditions using vulture-inspired deep reinforcement-learning,” Nat. Commun., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 4942, Jun. 10 2024. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-48670-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48670-x 2024

  9. [9]

    An approach for formation design and flight performance prediction based on aerodynamic formation unit: Energy-saving considerations,

    N. Qiao, T. Ma, X. Wang, et al., “An approach for formation design and flight performance prediction based on aerodynamic formation unit: Energy-saving considerations,” Chin. J. Aeronauti., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 77–91, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2024.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cja.2024.01.002 2024

  10. [10]

    Review of dynamic soaring: Technical aspects, nonlinear modeling perspectives and future directions,

    M. Imran, S. A. Eisa, and M. Adnan, “Review of dynamic soaring: Technical aspects, nonlinear modeling perspectives and future directions,” Nonlinear Dyn., vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 3117–3144, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11071-018-4540-3 22 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 00 XXXX 2022

    work page doi:10.1007/s11071-018-4540-3 2018

  11. [11]

    Multi-Phase Trajectory Planning for Wind Energy Harvesting in Air-Launched UAV Swarm Rendezvous and Formation Flight,

    X. Wang, T. Ma, L. Zhang, et al., “Multi-Phase Trajectory Planning for Wind Energy Harvesting in Air-Launched UAV Swarm Rendezvous and Formation Flight,” Drones (Basel), vol. 8, no. 12, p. 709, 2024., DOI: 10.3390/drones8120709

    work page doi:10.3390/drones8120709 2024

  12. [12]

    H. Hong, H. Zheng, F. Holzapfel, et al., Dynamic soaring in unspecified wind shear: a real-time quadratic-programming approach. 2019 27th mediterranean conference on control and automation (MED);Akko, Israel; 2019. p.600-605

    2019

  13. [13]

    Real-time Wind Predictions for Safe Drone Flights in Toronto,

    G. Michael, A. Haitham, and G. Tarek, “Real-time Wind Predictions for Safe Drone Flights in Toronto,” Results Eng., vol. 15, p. 100534, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100534

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100534 2022

  14. [14]

    Short- Term Wind Speed and Direction Forecasting by 3DCNN and Deep Convolutional LSTM,

    S. A. Puspita, S. Hiroshi, K. Takahiro, et al., “Short- Term Wind Speed and Direction Forecasting by 3DCNN and Deep Convolutional LSTM,” IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1620–1628, 2022. DOI: 10.1002/tee.23669

    work page doi:10.1002/tee.23669 2022

  15. [15]

    A hybrid Extreme Learning Machine model with Lé vy flight Chaotic Whale Optimization Algorithm for Wind Speed Forecasting,

    S. Syama, J. Ramprabhakar, R. Anand, and J. M. Guerrero, “A hybrid Extreme Learning Machine model with Lé vy flight Chaotic Whale Optimization Algorithm for Wind Speed Forecasting,” Results Eng., vol. 19, p. 101274, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101274

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101274 2023

  16. [16]

    Multi- feature-fused generative neural network with Gaussian mixture for multi-step probabilistic wind speed prediction,

    C. Yu, S. Fu, Z. Wei, X. Zhang, and Y. Li, “Multi- feature-fused generative neural network with Gaussian mixture for multi-step probabilistic wind speed prediction,” Appl. Energy, vol. 359, p. 122751,

  17. [17]

    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122751

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122751 2024

  18. [18]

    Kumon, I

    M. Kumon, I. Mizumoto, Z. Iwai, et al., Wind Estimation by Unmanned Air Vehicle with Delta Wing. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Barcelona, Spain; 2005. p. 1896–1901. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570390

    work page doi:10.1109/robot.2005.1570390 2005

  19. [19]

    In-Wing Pressure Measurements for Airspeed and Airflow Angle Estimation and High Angle-of- Attack Flight,

    H. Gian-Andrea, V. Stephanie, N. R. J. Lawrance, et al., “In-Wing Pressure Measurements for Airspeed and Airflow Angle Estimation and High Angle-of- Attack Flight,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1033–1045, 2022. DOI: 10.2514/1.G006412

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g006412 2022

  20. [20]

    A gyroscope- free visual-inertial flight control and wind sensing system for 10-mg robots,

    S. Fuller, Z. Yu, and Y. P. Talwekar, “A gyroscope- free visual-inertial flight control and wind sensing system for 10-mg robots,” Sci. Robot., vol. 7, no. 72,eabq8184, Nov. 23 2022. DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.abq8184

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abq8184 2022

  21. [21]

    Adaptive Wind Field Estimation Using an Empirical Bayesian Approach,

    K. Daniel, S. Julius, F. Nicolas, et al., “Adaptive Wind Field Estimation Using an Empirical Bayesian Approach,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 2386–2396, 2024. DOI: 10.2514/1.G008217

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g008217 2024

  22. [22]

    Three-Dimensional Spatiotemporal Wind Field Reconstruction Based on Physics-Informed Deep Learning,

    J. Zhang and X. Zhao, “Three-Dimensional Spatiotemporal Wind Field Reconstruction Based on Physics-Informed Deep Learning,” Appl. Energy, vol. 300, p. 117390, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117390

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117390 2021

  23. [23]

    Autonomous Exploration of a Wind Field with a Gliding Aircraft,

    R. J. Lawrance Nicholas, Sukkarieh Salah. “Autonomous Exploration of a Wind Field with a Gliding Aircraft,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 719–733, 2011. DOI: 10.2514/1.52236

    work page doi:10.2514/1.52236 2011

  24. [24]

    Johansen Tor, Cristofaro Andrea, Sorensen Kim, et al

    A. Johansen Tor, Cristofaro Andrea, Sorensen Kim, et al. On estimation of wind velocity, angle-of-attack and sideslip angle of small UAVs using standard sensors. 2015 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS); Denver, CO, USA; 2015. p. 510–519. DOI: 10.1109/ICUAS.2015.7152330

    work page doi:10.1109/icuas.2015.7152330 2015

  25. [25]

    Wind Field Estimation for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    W. Langelaan Jack, Alley Nicholas, Neidhoefer James. “Wind Field Estimation for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1016–1030, 2011. DOI: 10.2514/1.52532

    work page doi:10.2514/1.52532 2011

  26. [26]

    Fast real-time three-dimensional wind estimation for fixed-wing aircraft,

    H. Hong, M. Wang, H. Florian, et al., “Fast real-time three-dimensional wind estimation for fixed-wing aircraft,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 69, pp. 674–685,

  27. [27]

    DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2017.07.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2017.07.019 2017

  28. [28]

    Wind Estimation and Airspeed Calibration using a UAV with a Single-Antenna GPS Receiver and Pitot Tube,

    C. Am, K. Jihoon, L. Sanghyo, et al., “Wind Estimation and Airspeed Calibration using a UAV with a Single-Antenna GPS Receiver and Pitot Tube,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 109–117, 2011. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2011.5705663

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2011.5705663 2011

  29. [29]

    Langelaan Jack, Spletzer John, Montella Corey, et al

    W. Langelaan Jack, Spletzer John, Montella Corey, et al. Wind field estimation for autonomous dynamic soaring. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; St Paul, MN, USA; 2012. p. 16–22. DOI: 10.1109/ICRA.2012.6224954

    work page doi:10.1109/icra.2012.6224954 2012

  30. [30]

    Wake Vortex Detection and Tracking for Aircraft Formation Flight,

    R. Ignace, C. Denis-Gabriel, D. Matthieu, et al., “Wake Vortex Detection and Tracking for Aircraft Formation Flight,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 2225–2243, 2021. DOI: 10.2514/1.G006028

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g006028 2021

  31. [31]

    Rhudy Matthew, Larrabee Trenton, Chao Haiyang, et al

    B. Rhudy Matthew, Larrabee Trenton, Chao Haiyang, et al. UAV Attitude, Heading, and Wind Estimation Using GPS/INS and an Air Data System. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC). Boston, MA: Conference, 2013, p. 5201

    2013

  32. [32]

    Aerodynamic Model-Aided Estimation of Attitude, 3-D Wind, Airspeed, AOA, and SSA for High- Altitude Long-Endurance UAV,

    Y. Wonkeun, C. Hyoungsik, C. Am, et al., “Aerodynamic Model-Aided Estimation of Attitude, 3-D Wind, Airspeed, AOA, and SSA for High- Altitude Long-Endurance UAV,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 4300– 4314, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2020.2988962

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2020.2988962 2020

  33. [33]

    Moving Horizon Estimation of Air Data Parameters for UAVs,

    W. Andreas and J. T. Arne, “Moving Horizon Estimation of Air Data Parameters for UAVs,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 2101–2121, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2019.2946677

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2019.2946677 2020

  34. [34]

    Raymer Daniel, Aircraft design: a conceptual approach, 6th ed

    P. Raymer Daniel, Aircraft design: a conceptual approach, 6th ed. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2018, p. 31

    2018

  35. [35]

    Multi-source information fusion: Progress and future,

    X. Li, F. Dunkin, and J. Dezert, Dunkin Fir, Dezert Jean. “Multi-source information fusion: Progress and future,” Chin. J. Aeronauti., vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 24–58,

  36. [36]

    DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2023.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cja.2023.12.009 2023

  37. [37]

    Physics-based Learning of Quadrotor Crash Area using Kolmogorov-Arnold and Physics- Informed Neural Networks,

    A. K. Sivakumar, A. K. Kamath, T. T, and M. Feroskhan, “Physics-based Learning of Quadrotor Crash Area using Kolmogorov-Arnold and Physics- Informed Neural Networks,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 164, p. 110359, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2025.110359 AUTHOR ET AL.: SHORT ARTICLE TITLE 23

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.110359 2025

  38. [38]

    Optimal patterns of glider dynamic soaring,

    J. Zhao Yiyuan, “Optimal patterns of glider dynamic soaring,” Optim. Control Appl. Methods, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 67–89, 2004. DOI: 10.1002/oca.739

    work page doi:10.1002/oca.739 2004

  39. [39]

    Dynamic soaring under different atmospheric stability conditions,

    H. Hong, L. Liu, F. Holzapfel, and G. Sachs, “Dynamic soaring under different atmospheric stability conditions,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 970–977, 2023. DOI: 10.2514/1.G007037

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g007037 2023

  40. [40]

    Gryte, R

    K. Gryte, R. Hann, M. Alam, et al., Aerodynamic modeling of the skywalker x8 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicle. 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS); Dallas, TX, USA;2018. p.826-835. DOI: 10.1109/ICUAS.2018.8453370 Bingchen CHENG was born in Hebei, China, in December 2003. He received the B.S. degree in aircraft design and e...

    work page doi:10.1109/icuas.2018.8453370 2018

  41. [41]

    degree in aircraft conceptual design and systems engineering with Beihang University

    He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in aircraft conceptual design and systems engineering with Beihang University. His research interests include intelligent flight control, trajectory planning, and multi- UAV swarm technology. Tielin M A received the Ph.D. degree from Beihang University, Beijing, China, in 2008. He is currently working as a Researc...

    2008