IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,534,188
Granted Patent B2
US 12,534,188 · App. 19/072,231 · Granted Jan 27, 2026

Systems and methods for flight control of aircraft

Inventors: Nathan Thomas Depenbusch (Mountain View, CA); Marcus Aaron Dunavan (Overland Park, KS); Andrew Ging Wei Holup (Sunnyvale, CA); Jong-Yeob Shin (Hoschton, GA); Alexander Oliver Haas (Reno, NV)
Assignee: Archer Aviation Inc.
B64C13/16B64D45/0005G08B21/182
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,534,188
App. No.
19/072,231
Granted
Jan 27, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Aspects of the present disclosure generally relate to systems and methods for flight control of aircrafts driven by electric propulsion systems and in other types of vehicles. In one embodiment, a computer-implemented method is disclosed, comprising: measuring one or more state variables of the aircraft; inputting the one or more measured state variables to a prioritization scheme configured to determine an optimized actuator setting; determining one or more actuator commands based at least in part on inputting the one or more measured state variables to the prioritization scheme; and automatically controlling at least one actuator of the aircraft based on the determined one or more actuator commands.

Claims (96)

1 . A computer-implemented method of controlling an aircraft, comprising:

measuring, using at least one hardware processor, one or more state variables of the aircraft, wherein the one or more state variables comprise an actuator hinge moment;

inputting, using the at least one hardware processor, the one or more measured state variables to a prioritization scheme configured to determine an optimized actuator setting;

determining, using the at least one hardware processor, one or more actuator commands associated with the determined optimized actuator setting based at least in part on inputting the one or more measured state variables to the prioritization scheme; and

automatically moving, using the at least one hardware processor, at least two actuators each associated with a different control surface or leading edge surface of the aircraft based on the determined one or more actuator commands.

2 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the state variables further comprise at least one of:

an airspeed;

a bank angle;

an ambient temperature; or

an actuator temperature.

3 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein determining the one or more actuator commands occurs while the aircraft is in flight.

4 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the prioritization scheme comprises at least one of:

a weighted algorithm;

a cost function; or

a data structure.

5 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein determining the one or more actuator commands is further based on a flight mode.

6 . The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , wherein the prioritization scheme is configured to:

prioritize, using the at least one hardware processor, actuating at least one first actuator in a first flight mode; and

prioritize, using the at least one hardware processor, actuating at least one second actuator in a second flight mode.

7 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein determining the one or more actuator commands is further based on a maximum lift coefficient.

8 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

detecting, using the at least one hardware processor, a state of at least one actuator of the at least two actuators; and

generating, using the at least one hardware processor, a warning signal if the state exceeds a predetermined threshold.

9 . The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , wherein the predetermined threshold comprises at least one of:

a maximum torque of the at least one actuator of the at least two actuators; or

a maximum temperature of the at least one actuator of the at least two actuators.

10 . The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , further comprising:

automatically controlling, using the at least one hardware processor, the at least one actuator of the at least two actuators if the state exceeds a predetermined threshold.

11 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

in response to receiving a command to override automatic control, ceasing, using the at least one hardware processor, automatic moving of the at least two actuators.

12 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the control surface or leading edge surface comprises at least one of:

a flaperon;

a slat;

a Kreuger flap;

a droop flap;

a slotted flap;

a spoiler;

a morphing surface;

an aileron;

an elevon;

a flapervateron;

a ruddervator;

a rudder; or

an elevator.

13 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein automatically moving the at least two actuators comprises independently moving, using the at least one hardware processor, each of two actuators, each of the two actuators configured to control a different control surface or leading edge surface of the aircraft.

14 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the prioritization scheme is continuous.

15 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the at least two actuators include at least one actuator associated with an inboard control surface and at least one actuator associated with an outboard control surface.

16 . A system for controlling an aircraft, comprising:

at least one processor; and

at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:

measuring one or more state variables of the aircraft, wherein the one or more state variables comprise an actuator hinge moment;

inputting the one or more measured state variables to a prioritization scheme configured to determine an optimized actuator setting;

determining one or more actuator commands associated with the determined optimized actuator setting based at least in part on inputting the one or more measured state variables to the prioritization scheme; and

automatically moving at least two actuators each associated with a different control surface or leading edge surface of the aircraft based on the determined one or more actuator commands.

17 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the state variables further comprise at least one of:

an airspeed;

a bank angle;

an ambient temperature; or

an actuator temperature.

18 . The system of claim 16 , wherein determining the one or more actuator commands occurs while the aircraft is in flight.

19 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the prioritization scheme comprises at least one of:

a weighted algorithm;

a cost function; or

a data structure.

20 . The system of claim 16 , wherein determining the one or more actuator commands is further based on a flight mode.

21 . The system of claim 20 , wherein the prioritization scheme is configured to:

prioritize actuating at least one first actuator in a first flight mode; and

prioritize actuating at least one second actuator in a second flight mode.

22 . The system of claim 16 , wherein determining the one or more actuator commands is further based on a maximum lift coefficient.

23 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the operations further comprise:

detecting a state of at least one actuator of the at least two actuators; and

generating a warning signal if the state exceeds a predetermined threshold.

24 . The system of claim 23 , wherein the predetermined threshold comprises at least one of:

a maximum torque of the at least one actuator of the at least two actuators; or

a maximum temperature of the at least one actuator of the at least two actuators.

25 . The system of claim 23 , wherein the operations further comprise:

automatically controlling the at least one actuator of the at least two actuators if the state exceeds a predetermined threshold.

26 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the operations further comprise:

in response to receiving a command to override automatic control, ceasing automatic moving of the at least two actuators.

27 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the control surface or leading edge surface comprises at least one of:

a flaperon;

a slat;

a Kreuger flap;

a droop flap;

a slotted flap;

a spoiler;

a morphing surface;

an aileron;

an elevon;

a flapervateron;

a ruddervator;

a rudder; or

an elevator.

28 . The system of claim 16 , wherein automatically moving the at least two actuators comprises independently moving each of two actuators, each of the two actuators configured to control a different control surface or leading edge surface of the aircraft.

29 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the prioritization scheme is continuous.

30 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the at least two actuators include at least one actuator associated with an inboard control surface and at least one actuator associated with an outboard control surface.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 6, 2025
From: DEPENBUSCH, NATHAN THOMAS; DUNAVAN, MARCUS; HOLUP, ANDREW GING WEI; SHIN, JONG-YEOB; HAAS, ALEXANDER OLIVER
To: ARCHER AVIATION INC.
Reel/Frame 070427/0121 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation PCTUS2024037419 · Jul 10, 2024
Provisional Application 63512784 · Jul 10, 2023
Related Publication 20260015079A1 · Jan 15, 2026
References Cited (39)
US 5001646A · Caldwell et al. · 1991 [cited by applicant]
US 8256718B2 · Fleddermann et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8676544B2 · Calmels · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8706460B2 · Falangas · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9254909B2 · Moser et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9446837B2 · Wildschek et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9764825B2 · Guida · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9898033B1 · Long · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10562610B2 · Guida · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10967951B2 · Mahmulyin · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 10983534B2 · English et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11685516B2 · Ivanco et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11834152B2 · Ho et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20020153452A1 · King et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20040093130A1 · Osder · 2004 [cited by examiner]
US 20070129815A1 · Flemisch · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20090287365A1 · Riedinger · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20100076625A1 · Yoeli · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20120318929A1 · Golling · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20130138270A1 · Christensen et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20150083850A1 · Moser et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150203215A1 · Falangas · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20180362149A1 · Huynh · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190332125A1 · Irwin, III et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20210047995A1 · Maris · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210362847A1 · Mahboubi · 2021 [cited by examiner]
CN 117390899A · 2024 [cited by applicant]
EP 3891067B1 · 2024 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020180373A2 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
International Search Report in International PCT Application No. PCT/US2024/037419, mailed Aug. 19, 2024, 2 pages. [cited by applicant]
Nguyen et al. “Development of Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap for Performance Adaptive Aeroelastic Wing.” SAE Technical Paper Series, Sep. 15, 2015, https://doi. org/10.4271/2015-01-2565. 33 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kim et al. “Development of Flight Control Laws for the T-50 Advanced Supersonic Jet Trainer.” International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences, vol. 8, No. 1, Jun. 30, 2007, pp. 32-45, https://doi.org/10.5139/ij… [cited by applicant]
Qiu et al. “Improving Aileron Effectiveness based on Changing the Position of Aileron Connectors.” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2019, Jun. 4, 2019, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5046395.… [cited by applicant]
Kaneko et al. “Operational Loads Regression Equation Development for Advanced Fighter Aircraft.” 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2004. 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Walker et al. “F-35B Integrated Flight-Propulsion Control Development.” 2013 International Powered Lift Conference, Aug. 8, 2013. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4243. 15 pages. [cited by applicant]
Viganó et al. “Development of augmented control laws for a tiltrotor in low and high speed flight modes.” 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11881/3877. 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Denham, Jr. et al. “Converging on a Precision Hover Control Strategy for the F-35B Stovl Aircraft.” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit 2008, Aug. 2008. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6331. 13 … [cited by applicant]
Whittle. “Flying the Osprey Is Not Dangerous, Just Different: Veteran Pilots.” Breaking Defense, Breaking Defense, Sep. 5, 2012, breakingdefense.com/2012/09/flying-the-osprey-is-not-dangerous-just-different-veteran-pilo… [cited by applicant]
Kang et al. “Development of Flight Control System and Troubleshooting on Flight Test of a Tilt-Rotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences, vol. 17, No. 1, Mar. 30, 2016, pp.… [cited by applicant]