44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Confere AIAA 2003-1893

7-10 April 2003, Norfolk, Virginia

IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL FLIGHT LOADS

M. H. Love*, R. E. Yoakum, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

R.T. Britt† Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems

Abstract
A survey concerning critical flight loads for recent
aircraft is reported. The investigation identified
“missed” critical flight loads and causes. Causes
include various constituents of load prediction
methodology and other areas such as “pilot exceeding
flight envelope” and “system failures.” Data from
fighter, transport, bomber, and special aircraft was
collected through interviews conducted in a
concerted effort. Data analysis was motivated by the
desire to minimize future occurrences of load
surprises with its associated costs and readiness
impacts. Recommendations for future research and
development were made to the U.S. Air Force.

Introduction
In the 1990s, the aerospace industry consolidated.
With consolidation the industry realized attrition of
experience in design of new aircraft. Simultaneous to
the changing culture new technologies evolved
impacting aerodynamic, structures, and controls
interactions. Under the U.S. Fixed Wing Vehicle
Program, the Aerodynamics/ Structures/Controls
Interaction (ASCI) area was identified for
government and industry collaboration.
Figure 1: Survey on Recent Aircraft Conducted to
At the direction of government and industry Identify Needs for Research and Development
planning, a team of experts in the ASCI area was
tasked to identify research activities for industry, of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.
government, and academia. In addition, potential
research programs were scoped, and roadmapped.1 This paper reports on the efforts of Lockheed Martin
and Northrop Grumman under an Air Force
A window of opportunity appeared wherein it program.2 The Lockheed Martin team efforts were
became prudent to examine approaches, methodology coordinated with Boeing efforts3 to ensure a
and tools historically used in ensuring structural consistent and integrated database for the Air Force
integrity for new aircraft designs. The goal of the at its conclusion.
study is to minimize and hopefully eliminate costly
redesigns and unforeseen flight limitations. It is Study Objective and Overview
essential that history be captured to preclude The objective of this effort was to identify areas of
repeating old mistakes on future aircraft. The research for improved flight loads predictions. The
“Identification of Critical Flight Loads” program was approach (shown in Figure 2) captured historical data
directed to initiate efforts concerning improvement in concerning the critical flight loads of recent aircraft
the prediction of critical flight loads. To that end, a where unanticipated structural response and or
database of critical flight loads events has been damage was observed. The information gathered was
created and populated with information from aircraft studied to understand root causes and to promote
manufactured by the legacy companies improved flight loads prediction in future aircraft.

*
AIAA Senior Member
†
AIAA Senior Member

1
Copyright © 2003 by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 TASK 1
Team Coordination Plan
Select Aircraft
Develop Survey Template
Provide Review @ AFRL
TASK 2
Methodology Development Plan
Identify Research
Identify Needed Changes
Figure 2: “Identification of Critical Flight Loads” Program
Recommendations for technology development in
flight loads prediction were developed based on these
studies. Participants in the study under this contract
included Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
(LM Aero - then Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft
Systems, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, and
Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems), Northrop
Grumman Air Combat Systems , Northrop Grumman
Airborne Electronic Warfare Systems,. The Boeing
Military Corporation worked a parallel contract to
this one. Their data was developed collaboratively
and reported simultaneously.
Definition of Critical Flight Loads
Critical flight loads are those flight loads that are
used for structural design and sizing, component
arrangement and placement, and after final design,
the determination of safe flight operational limits.
These loads are predicted in design from analysis and
2
Database Development
Develop DB Schema
Gather Data & Populate DB
Characterize Surprises
Final Deliverables
Electronic Database
Briefing @ AFRL
Final Report & Plan
often subscale model testing. Flight loads testing
collects data to verify predictions but conditions can
be missed. Critical loads continue to be verified
throughout the life of the product. During any aircraft
fleet life-cycle, unexpected incidents have invariably
occurred. Figure 3 identifies types of incidents,
causes, and corrective actions of focus in this study.
The pilot will experience an unexpected aircraft
response or experience diminished aircraft control.
The aircraft will suffer structural failure or damage.
These incidents can cause, or may have been caused
by, unexpected and excessive structural loads. There
are many causes for these excessive load incidents
some of which can be identified as problems with the
original loads or life analysis. Other causes can be
identified that will also result in unexpectedly high
loads. The pilot may have exceeded the aircraft
flight
 Problem Types
• Excessive Static Loads
• Excessive Dynamic Loads
• Excessive Aircraft Response
• Structural Damage or Failure
• Lost or Diminished Control
• Loads Discrepancy
Types of Corrective Actions
• Impose Flight Restrictions
• Modify Control Laws
• Implement Load Alleviation,
Suppression, Reduction
• Update Loads Analysis
• Update Aerodynamic or
Flexibility Analysis
• Expand Structural Envelope by
Analysis and/or Test
Figure 3: Characteristic Data Acquired in Critical Flight Loads Study
limitations. The fleet or a part of the fleet may have
been operated in a manner that was inconsistent with
the original mission design usage.
Incidences can be precipitated by improper
maintenance practices and procedures or prior
airplane damage such as service equipment colliding
with part of the airplane causing unnoticed structural
damage. Incidents can result from failure of various
aircraft systems and subsystems (e.g., electrical, fuel,
avionics, engine or hydraulic systems).
Critical flight load conditions may have been missed
because of a variety of reasons. Reasons for missed
conditions can be organized into several categories
such as inadequate loads analysis resulting from
immature aerodynamic or inertia data, improper loads
analysis methodology and implementation or
inaccurate structural flexibility data. Transient
maneuver and failure analysis plays an important roll
in identifying critical flight loads conditions, so
inadequate modeling in this area can cause
3
Types of Causes
• Inadequate Loads Analysis
• Aircraft Exceeded Flight Limitations
• Prior Aircraft Structural or Defect
• Aircraft System Failures (Flight
Controls, Electrical …)
• Aircraft Usage Exceeded Design
Mission Analysis
• Structural Modification
• Structural Repair
• Implement Aircraft Inspection
• Improve Maintenance Practices
• Inspect Aircraft
• Action Under Review
• No Action Taken
• Outer Moldline Modification
• Mass Balance
unintended problems. Also, missed conditions can
result from inadequate and incomplete loads criteria
specifications. Typically, criteria are developed from
the various customer specification documents and
expanded by significant test or operational data from
prior aircraft programs.
Additionally, each new aircraft design brings with it
new and different requirements that are incorporated
into the criteria as the aircraft design matures.
Modern aircraft design has evolved toward
computerized, fly-by-wire control systems with
increased use of thrust vectoring technology.
Computerized control allows aircraft flight control
surfaces to move in various combinations at rates and
directions that were not anticipated by previous
customer specifications or prior design and
operational experience. Therefore, the establishment
of new criteria development methodologies that can
accommodate modern computerized flight control
systems is essential to preclude the incidence of
criteria induced missed critical flight loads
conditions.
Missed critical flight loads conditions, no matter
what the reason, can have serious safety of flight and
diminished service life repercussions that lead to
expensive aircraft modification and repair. The need
to collect data, organize information, and then
identify areas to improve has been identified. The
creation of a searchable database of critical flight
loads events is a logical way to collect and organize
the data.
Flight Loads Database
An electronic survey (illustrated in Figure 2) was
constructed in Microsoft Excel and Access to gather
data where unanticipated flight loads were observed.
A questionnaire was developed to which the answers
were then stored in spreadsheet format. The
questionnaire allowed for standardization of the data
in the database, thus facilitating future queries in
cause/effect analyses.
Figure 2: Standardized Entry Facilitated
Uniform Responses Within the Database
Survey of Data Acquired
Aircraft surveyed under this contract effort include F-
16, F-5E/F, F-14, P-3, S-3A, C-130, and the L-1011.
In addition technical information concerning the F-
111, EF-111, B-2, F-14, and YF-23 was included.
Entries in the database were derived through
documentation searches and personal interviews. At
the time of the study, the F-22 was considered to be
immature for evaluation. Future entries may be
entered more easily as data is acquired “real time” on
an existing program.
4
The database was studied to characterize the causes
of the various incidences. The number of entries
however preclude any statistically based
generalizations. Figure 3 shows the demographics of
the data collected. The essence of the information is
that it supports the need for technology development
for improved loads prediction methods. A total of
128 incidences were recorded in the surveys and
distributed across the various aircraft.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 # Of Events
Fighter
# Of A/C
Bomber
Transport
Operations
Passenger
Special
Figure 3: Most of the Data Acquired for Fighter
Aircraft
A breakdown of the problems observed in this study
is shown in Figure 4. The “Excessive Static Load”
category characterizes maneuver loads simulations
and constitutes 47% of the events recorded in the
database. Events recorded in the “Excessive
Dynamic Load” category include loads from store
ejections, jet wake encounters, and buffeting. The
high percentage of “Excessive Static Load”
occurrences is due to the relative number of F-16
incidences reported. The F-16 high-g performance
and relatively simple geometry attribute to its
challenges. Other high performance aircraft, such as
the F-18, have a history of “Excessive Dynamic
Load.”
“Structural Failure or Damage” may include events
where loads caused such an event as well as events
where excessive loads were caused as a result of prior
damage. “Excessive Aircraft Response” includes
limit cycle oscillation type response and excessive
load-factor in a maneuver due to the control system.
“Lost or Diminished Control” refers to a condition
leading to the inability to control the aircraft or
prevent a crash. All three of the events in here
involve the P-3 aircraft. The “Loads Discrepancy”
category was developed to include cases where the
reason for a load discrepancy was undeterminable.
 70
60
50
Events

40
30
20
10
0 d

ge

ol
e
d

r
oa

ns

nc
oa

he
ntr
ma
cL

pa
cL

Ot
Co
sp
Da

re
mi
a ti

Re

ed

i sc
r
na
St

e o

h
a ft

sD
Dy

ni s
e

ur

r cr
si v

ad
mi
a il
e

Ai
iv
s

Di

Lo
lF
ce

ss

or
a

si v
Ex

ce

tur
Ex

st
s
r uc

ce

Lo
Ex
St

Figure 4: Problems Identified For Over 128 Incidences

An examination of the total causes recorded show a It is important to note that each of the aircraft
dominance of “Inadequate Loads Analysis” as the surveyed were designed with methods ranging from
number one cause. This is seen in Figure 5 along wind tunnel (i.e. empirical) and slide rule to
with the number two cause being “Aircraft Exceeded computationally based procedures including
Flight” Limitations and the number three cause of computational fluid dynamics and structural finite
“Prior Aircraft Structural Damage.” There are a element modeling. This consideration underlines the
number of system type failures as well. The natural essence of good aerodynamics. Figure 6 displays
question resulting from this observation is the causes items identified under “Inadequate Loads Analysis.”
of “Inadequate Loads Analysis.”

100
90
80
70
Events

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
sis

m
m

m
.. .

r
.. .

...
.. .

he
ste

ste
te

ste
a ly

tl

sy

de
l

Ot
ys
ra
gh

sy

sy

sy
an

ee
tu

ro l
ls
fli

l ic

on
uc

el

xc
ds

nt
ica
d

au

fu
ls i
str

ee
co
de
lo a

ctr
dr

pu

ft
ee

ft

ht

ag
ra
e le
hy
te

c ra

ro
f lig
xc

rc

us
ua

tp
af t

ft

Ai
a ir
te

af t
eq

ft
a

af
rcr

rcr
af

ra
io r

rcr
ad

rcr
rc r

rc
Ai

Ai
Pr
In

Ai

Ai
Ai
Ai

Figure 5: The Dominant Cause to Identified Events Classified To Be Inadequate Loads Analysis

5
 18
16
14
12
Events

10
8
6
4
2
0

r
ng
l
n
a ta

na

s is

tup
si s
e

re

is

r
Fo
de
tio
as

es

he
lys
pli

wa
e

Mo
aly

a ly
lD

Se
en

Ot
ed
ta b

om

ula

ou

a
ft
An

An
ne

An

ign
so

st
en

y
S im
da

ct i

tC
ili t
n

Te
Ph

es
ue

st
Tu

sis
ffe

en
ic

tt e
xib

Gu
OF
m

t ig

te
oE

on

a ly
w

F lu
nd

Fl e
na

a
ot
F lo

Fa

MD

qu
mp
Wi

An
er

nN
dy

al

eA

de
l

Co
ro

ca

tur

iti o

I na
ae

Lo

c
r uc

ro
rf a

d
s ic

on
Ae
St

Su

tC
Ba

of
ol

gh
g
ntr

lin

F li
Co

de
Mo

Figure 6: Aerodynamics Subcauses Lead to Inadquate Loads Analysis

“Basic aerodynamic database” refers to information damage tolerance life as well. It was not the intention
providing an overall sense of the aerodynamic of this study to examine service loads. The F-16 and
properties. “Wind tunnel data” refers to the extent of F-5 however, are widely used by many countries.
the data (e.g., flow parameters - angle of attack, Consequently operation-type problems were
control surface deflections, Mach numbers), while discovered and entered in the database.
local flow phenomena refers to knowledge and
accountability of buffet, flow separations, etc.. The third most prevalent area concerns “MDOF
Control surface aerodynamic effectiveness refers to (multi-degree of freedom) simulation.” This category
the understanding of controllability issues as does the deals with the actual integration of aerodynamics,
modeling or aerodynamic component coupling. controls and structures in performing maneuver
These aerodynamic related areas make up a simulations that provide the actual loads. Events
considerable portion of the events covered. The large recorded in this category come mostly from the F-16
number of events concerning “Wind Tunnel Data” is and emerged as excessive static loads on both the
skewed by ten events recorded for the F-111 alone. wing and vertical tail.
F-111 was an aggressive swing-wing design which
allows for a large combination of configurations. Other areas of note are the “Flight Conditions Not
Many of the critical loads for this aircraft were Designed For” and the Flutter Analysis. Six cases
identified in flight test. ranging in Problems, Aircraft, and Components
shows that not enough data is available to
The second most hit category in the “Inadequate characterize the latter category. The limit cycle type
Loads Analysis” cause is “Fatigue” or durability and

6
phenomena was classified as an “inadequate flutter
analysis capability.”
The demographics of events on aircraft components
attributes fifty percent of the events over the lifting
surfaces. This is consistent with the findings related
to aerodynamics. Seventeen percent of the events are
in the Fuselage, and these findings are mostly from
B-2A data. Two fuselage events were recorded on
the SR-71 aircraft as well. These two aircraft are
quite different than the conventional wing tailed
aircraft such as the F-16, F-111 and F-5.
The final single level sort performed within the
database deals with Corrective Actions. More than
25% of the events involve expanding the structural
envelope through additional analysis or tests. Many
of the structural modifications deal with structural
failure or damage. Of note, many of the aircraft
surveyed were developed with conservative “hand
crank” methods as compared to the current
widespread use of computerized methods in aircraft
design. These methods of the past regained built in
margin for envelope expansion through time as
conservative methods were refined through improved
analysis methods. The F-16 Program, for instance,
has seen many block design changes in its life. The
early block changes consisted primarily of avionics
improvements. Few structural modifications were
required in the early block changes. Expectations are
that the aircraft being designed and developed today
will show an increase in the number of structural
modifications and imposed flight restrictions.
Two-level sorts were performed on the database to
obtain information concerning cross correlation of
the categories. Figure 7 shows a cross correlation of
the documented Problems with the documented
Subcauses of the Inadequate Loads Analysis Cause.
There is a clear message in this data that the largest
cause for “Missed Loads” involves getting accurate
and fully representative aerodynamics data. To
facilitate this observation, the Basic Aerodynamic
Data, Wind Tunnel Measured Data, Aerodynamic
Control Surface Effectiveness (including aeroelastic
effects), and Local Flow Phenomena categories were
combined. In one case of the data mining, a comment

Excessive Static Load

35%
Excessive Dynamic Load
30% Structural Failure or Damage
25% Excessive Aircraft Response

20% Lost or Diminished Control

Loads Discrepancy
15%
10%
5% Lo
Lo a ds
0% E x st o D is
S t ces r D im cre p
r s
E x u ctu ive ini s a nc y
ta

ta

A h
E x ce s s ral F ircr e d
i on
Da

d
Da

ail a ft C o
e

ce i ve
ke

ue
la t

ar

ss u
i ve Dy n re o R e s n trol
cs

r
loo
res

he
ft w

tig
mu
mi

St a m r D po
Ot
er
ctu

n
Fa

a ti
So

i a
na

Si

c L c Lo ma se
Ov
dy

g
ru

oa a
OF

e
s is

d d
St

io n
ro

MD

a ly
Ae

d it

An
on
tC
gh
Fl i

Figure 3-8 Aerodynamics Account for 50% of Loads Problems

7
was made by the interviewee that “there was an
inability to believe the wind tunnel data.”
Aerodynamic analyses requires more than testing to
fully comprehend the magnitude of issues in
developing the aerodynamic database.
Key Observations
In the mining and study of the data, phenomena and
causes were correlated with key attributes of the
aircraft they were associated with. These are
summarized for various aircraft.
On the F-16, about half of the events identified
involve wing aerodynamic phenomena. The F-16 is
the first 9g aircraft and included aggressive
technology such as an actively scheduled leading
edge flap for minimum drag throughout the flight
envelope. These events include estimation of leading
edge flap hinge moments, basic wing root loads and
flaperon hinge moments. They also include the well-
known limit cycle oscillation at many points in the
flight envelope. Other areas documented include
large store ejection, jet wake encounter, and ventral
fin dynamic-loads. Corrective actions for the F-16
problems largely consist of expanding the structural
envelope by analysis or test, structural modifications,
and implementation of inspection programs.
The F-111 aircraft also included aggressive flight
technologies. Almost all of the causes for the
problems identified were of an aerodynamic nature.
The swing-wing capability allowed the vehicle to
assume many configurations, while the assuming
these at a very wide range of speeds. The aircraft
was designed at during the emergence of
computerized methods. There was a strong reliance
on static and flight tests in the development program.
Many of the critical flight cases were actually
determined in flight tests.
Of the remaining LM Aero aircraft surveyed, the F-
117 and SR-71data is almost exclusively from the
development stages of the programs. Both aircraft
are in the Special Operations category. Little
information has been fed back to LM Aero after
deployment.
The F-5E/F EMD program, performed in the late
1960s and early 1970s showed surprisingly few
design issues and anomalies, with no significant
failures remarked. A majority of the issues were
categorized as “Load Discrepancies” which indicated
discrepancies between analysis and test, requiring
further assessments to determine whether an aircraft
8
restriction was necessary. During the course of the
investigations it became evident that significantly
more in service problems arose due to the wide and
varied usage of the F-5. Over 2000 aircraft are still
flying, with 23 foreign users. Overlooked loading
conditions in the service loads spectra can eventually
reveal themselves in fatigue damage. The F-16
experiences similar issues. Although these issues
were identified, no further work was done to examine
the causes.
On the F-14. Rudder buzz (shock induced rudder
oscillations) was uncovered during flight test,
requiring change in the external mold line on the
vertical tail in conjunction with adjustment of the
buzz damper. A structural failure incident (engine
door) and wing load exceedance were documented,
both resulting from inadequate loads analysis.
For the B-2 incidences of ‘Excessive Vehicle
Response’ were recorded and these involve the
difficulty in assembling high coupled aerodynamic,
structural and control system models into simulation
models. One incident in this category is a self-excited
aeroelastic response that results in vehicle pitch
oscillations under unique weight and flight condition
combinations.4 Although outside the flight envelope,
the phenomenon required extensive analysis and test
to characterize in case of overspeed incidences. A
vast majority of the incidents were due to highly
coupled phenomenon often encompassing non-linear
aerodynamics. The exhaust-impinged structure
included highly non-linear effects due to thermal
loading, complicated by a complex dynamic
aerodynamic and acoustic loading. It is evident that
the missed static and dynamic loading conditions can
be attributed in part to a lack of mature
multidisciplinary design tools, a situation which still
exists.
Technology Recommendations
Technology programs were recommended to the U.S.
Air Force dealing with variable fidelity
aerodynamics; including coupling with structures and
controls. In addition, development of thermo-
vibroacoustics and robust loads methodologies were
also recommended.
Variable Fidelity Aerodynamics
A statistically significant number of the issues
identified were due to the inability to capture and/or
include complex aerodynamic flows in
multidisciplinary analysis systems. The ability to
selectively incorporate high fidelity aerodynamic
predictions into simulation packages for maneuver
loads, unsteady airloads and aeroelastic stability is
considered of very high value for future EMD
programs. Maturation and incorporation of reduced
order methods for multidisciplinary analysis is
recommended as part of this activity. Variable
fidelity aerodynamics coupled with linear structural
finite elements and with a general flight control law
system is needed for the complete loads package. A
multidisciplinary computation environment such as
the CFD Research Corporation product, MDICE,5
provides a general “plug and play” environment. A
building block approach is needed for high fidelity
CFD in provide for robust grid moving schemes
(flexible for structural deformation and rigid for
control surface movement). Linkage to a general time
accurate multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) flight
control system is then recommended to bring
appropriate fidelity within a unified environment.
Robust Design Methods
In this area, the needs for development of methods
examining pilot profile usage and fleet mission usage
was highlighted. Some of the events documented in
the database involved excessive aircraft response due
to the inability of the control system to maintain
accelerations and control surface travel limits.
Others involved variable usage across different users.
Initial flight conditions lead digital flight controls to
unexpected solutions for controlling the aircraft.
Maneuver conditions are typically analyzed in
development of design loads for the airframe,
however with few variations in initial conditions.
Comprehensive tracking of flight loads is envisioned
as a new attribute in the control law simulation.
These methodologies would be used in the design as
control laws are being checked out or as mission
scenarios are projected. Load anomalies could be
caught before the aircraft is flown, and possibly
corrected through the control laws or limited
structural redesign.
Thermo-Acoustic Structural Analysis
Imbedded exhaust systems provide challenging
design problems involving impingement of hot, high
pressure gas over structure intended to either
passively or actively cool the airflow. The flow is
highly unsteady resulting in a severe vibration
environment. Structure in this environment is subject
to vibration induced fatigue. Thermo-vibroacoustic
analysis capability improvement is needed for
exhaust impinged structures. Data characterization of
material systems at extreme temperature for
durability and damage tolerance is required to
support such an analysis system. Capabilities to
9
model active or passive cooling should be
incorporated into the system.
Summary and Conclusions
The objective of the Identification of Critical Flights
contract was to gather events of “missed critical
flight loads” concerning recent aircraft, analysis of
the data for characteristic causes, and
recommendation of technology and process related
developments to reduce the number of events and
thus reduce operation and support costs for aircraft.
An electronic database schema was developed in
Microsoft Excel along with a structured
questionnaire. The database was loaded with 128
events from thirteen legacy aircraft of Lockheed
Martin and Northrop Grumman. The data was
characterized through analysis of aircraft, problems,
causes, subcauses, components, and corrective
actions. The number one cause for these events was
determined to be the characterization of airplane
aerodynamics. Technology programs were
recommended dealing with variable fidelity
aerodynamics; including coupling with structures and
controls. In addition, development of thermo-
vibroacoustics and robust loads methodologies were
also recommended.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the efforts of many in this
study. The work was performed under contract to the
Air Force Research Laboratory / Air Vehicle
Directorate. Program management of the Lockheed
Martin effort and overall effort was provided by
Mike Love. Principle work was performed by
Richard Yoakum at LM Aero in developing the
database questionnaire, mining LM Aero data, and
data analysis. The program manager at Northrop
Grumman Corporation (NGC) subcontract was John
Volk.
A parallel effort was conducted at The Boeing
Company with Michael Clement as the program lead.
His collaboration and efforts investigating the Boeing
legacy aircraft truly complimented the LM Aero /
NGC effort and was greatly appreciated.
Mr. Elijah Turner was the primary program engineer
at the Air Force Research Laboratory Air Vehicle
Directorate. He was assisted by Mr. Larry Huttsell as
well. Their assistance, support, and guidance are
greatly appreciated.
 References
1) Luker, Joel J., Huttsell, Lawrence J., “Air Force
Research Laboratory’s Progress in Fluids-
Structures Interaction,” American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper, AIAA-98-
2420.
2) Love, Michael H., Yoakum, Richard E., and
Volk, John, “Identification of Critical Flight
Loads, Final Report,” AFRL-VA-WP-TR-1999-
3058, July 1999.
3) Clement, Michael G., “Identification of Critical
Flight Loads, Final Report,” AFRL-VA-WP-TR-
1999-3037, March 1999.
4) Jacobson, S. B., Britt, R. T., Freim, D. R., and
Kelly, P. D., “Residual Pitch Oscillation (RPO)
Flight Test and Analysis on the B-2 Bomber,”
AIAA 98-1805, AIAA/ASME/ ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference and Exhibit, April 1998.
5) Siegel, J.M., Jr., et al, “Application of A Multi-
Disciplinary Computing Environment (MDICE)
for Loosely Coupled Fluid-Structural Analysis,”
Presented at the 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium of MDO, AIAA 98-4866,
September 1998.

10