Engineering Development Simulator (EDS) and Pilot Training Simulator (PTS) Serve Fundamentally Different Purposes in an Aircraft Development Program. PTS Are Normally Developed After the Aircraft Design Has Reached a Mature Configuration and the Functional and Behavioral Characteristics of the Aircraft Systems Have Been Exactly Defined for Pilot Trainings Aligned with Aircraft Delivery in the Program. In Contrast, EDS Is Established While Aircraft Design Is Still Evolving Through Program Plan. It Represents a Selected Design Baseline in a Real-time, Pilot-In-The-Loop (PIL) Environment So That Emerging Aircraft, Aircraft Systems, Cockpit Environment and Human-machine Interface Characteristics Can Be Evaluated Before the Corresponding Configuration Is Fully Available for Flight. This Paper Presents a Development and Utilization Methodology for EDS Created for Combat Aircraft Development Program. The Paper Describes the Rationale for Establishing the Simulator, Its Principal Functional Components, the Relationship Between Aircraft Design Baselines and Simulation Baselines, the Integration of Mathematical and Behavioral Models, and the Iterative Process Through Which Pilot Feedback Is Transferred to Aircraft and Aircraft Systems Design Activities. A Quantitative Framework Is Proposed to Measure the Engineering Contribution of the EDS Through Requirement-oriented, PIL Testing. The Simulator’s Engineering Workload Is Demonstrated Using Project Data Compromising 1,200 Evaluated Requirements, 6,920 Test Points, 232 Simulator Test Runs and 360 Closed Engineering Findings. These Measured Data Are Used to Characterize Simulator Test Productivity and Establish a Flight-Test-Equivalent (FTE) Metric Based on the Assumed Number of Comparable Test Points Per Representative Flight Opportunity. A Scenario-based Flight-Test Reduction (FTR) Analysis Is Then Performed by Varying Both the Test Point Per Flight Assumption and the Corresponding Aircraft Flight Test Baseline. The Results Demonstrated How the Estimated Flight Test Contribution of the EDS Changes Under Different Baseline and Productivity Assumptions. The Simulator’s Engineering Approach Provides a Framework for Quantifying EDS Engineering Activity While Distinguishing Measured Simulator Results from Assumption-based Flight Test Equivalence. The EDS Therefore Provides a Repeatable PIL Environment in Which the Aircraft Development Issues Can Be Identified, Investigated and Resolved Before or in Parallel with Aircraft Flight Testing, Supporting Earlier Design Iteration and Reducing Dependence on the Aircraft for Initial Engineering Evaluation.
| Published in | American Journal of Aerospace Engineering (Volume 12, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11 |
| Page(s) | 28-39 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Engineering Development Simulator, Pilot In The Loop Simulation, Aircraft Development, Flight Testing, Simulator Based Development, Cockpit Human Machine Interface, Test Point Efficiency, Flight Test Equivalent
| [1] | Baldwin, D. M., and Drewett, J. D. “The Air Combat Simulator and Its Role in the Aircraft Development Process”, AIAA Paper 86-2682, Aircraft Systems, Design & Technology Meeting, Dayton, Ohio, USA, October 20-22, 1986. |
| [2] | Parrag, M., Knotts, L., and Weingarten, N. “Use of Ground-Based and In-Flight Simulation for Flight Control System Development”, AIAA Paper 90-1286, 5th Biannual Flight Test Conference, Ontario, California, USA, 1990, pp. 215-224. |
| [3] | Durak, U., Gerlach, T., Ozturk, A., Kargın, V., Aydemir, H., and Zengin, U. “Flight Simulator Model Integration for Supporting Pilot-in-the-Loop Testing in Model-Based Rotorcraft Design”, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 2016. |
| [4] | van't Hoff, J., et al. “Preliminary Guidelines for a Requirements-Based Approach to Certification by Simulation for Rotorcraft”, 48th European Rotorcraft Forum Conference Proceedings / Technical publication, 2022. |
| [5] | Bradfield, W., and West, R. N. “Use of an Engineering Simulator to Inform Design and Flight Test Planning of a Novel Hybrid Aircraft”, Society of Flight Test Engineers European Chapter, 2022. |
| [6] | Korek, W. T., Beecroft, P., Lone, M., et al. “Simulation Framework and Development of the Future Systems Simulator”, The Aeronautical Journal, 128(1330), pp. 2754-2780, 2024. |
| [7] | Aydemir, H., Zengin, U., Pinon Fischer, O. J., and Durak, U. “From Iron Birds to Digital Twins with Engineering Simula-tors: Toward Virtual Certification.” Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, 22(11), 2025. |
| [8] | Wang, H., Zhang, C., and Chen, Y. “System Engineering-Based Flight Simulation Device Design Technology and Application Research.” In: Pham, D. T., Lei, Y., and Lou, Y. (eds.), Mechanical Design and Simulation: Exploring Innovations for the Future, MDS 2024, Lecture Notes in Mechanical engineering, pp. 251-267. Springer, Singapore, 2025. |
| [9] | Zhang, W., Deng, J., Liu, X., and Lu, J. “FlightTwin: A Generalized Digital Twin Accompanying Flight Framework for Fixed-Wing Aircraft.” IEEE Access, 12, 125194-125210, 2024. |
| [10] | Wang, L., Niu, Y., Liu, H., Wang, J., Wang, X., and Yue, T. “Aircraft Digital Virtual Flight Simulation Method and Its Ap-plication.” Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 46(5), 531543, 2025. |
| [11] | Portapas, V. “Developing Alsim AL250 Based eVTOL Flight Simulator.” Aviation, 29(1), 39-47, 2025. |
| [12] | Moenck, K., Rath, J.-E., Koch, J., Wendt, A., Kalscheuer, F., Schüppstuhl, T., et al. “Digital Twins in Aircraft Production and MRO: Challenges and Opportunities.” CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 15, 1051-1067, 2024. |
| [13] | Rädel, M., Denker, B., van de Kamp, B., Liebers, N., et al. “Towards the Validation of Manufacturing Simulations by Means of Digital Twins: Conception, Implementation and Data Acquisition for a Composite Aircraft Moveable Manufac-turing Process.” CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 16, 399-416, 2025. |
| [14] | Waitman, S., Marcos, A., and Sato, M. “Design and Aircraft-in-the-Loop Validation of Structured-H∞ Self-Scheduled Fault-Tolerant Controllers.” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2024. |
| [15] | Schiller, A. “Implementation of a Toolbox for the Generation of Flight Profiles for Use in Simulator Studies.” CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 15, 1175-1188, 2024. |
APA Style
Oksuz, A. (2026). Engineering Development Simulator-Based Aircraft Development: A Pilot-in-the-Loop Engineering Approach. American Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 12(2), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11
ACS Style
Oksuz, A. Engineering Development Simulator-Based Aircraft Development: A Pilot-in-the-Loop Engineering Approach. Am. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2026, 12(2), 28-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11
AMA Style
Oksuz A. Engineering Development Simulator-Based Aircraft Development: A Pilot-in-the-Loop Engineering Approach. Am J Aerosp Eng. 2026;12(2):28-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11,
author = {Aykut Oksuz},
title = {Engineering Development Simulator-Based Aircraft Development: A Pilot-in-the-Loop Engineering Approach},
journal = {American Journal of Aerospace Engineering},
volume = {12},
number = {2},
pages = {28-39},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajae.20261202.11},
abstract = {Engineering Development Simulator (EDS) and Pilot Training Simulator (PTS) Serve Fundamentally Different Purposes in an Aircraft Development Program. PTS Are Normally Developed After the Aircraft Design Has Reached a Mature Configuration and the Functional and Behavioral Characteristics of the Aircraft Systems Have Been Exactly Defined for Pilot Trainings Aligned with Aircraft Delivery in the Program. In Contrast, EDS Is Established While Aircraft Design Is Still Evolving Through Program Plan. It Represents a Selected Design Baseline in a Real-time, Pilot-In-The-Loop (PIL) Environment So That Emerging Aircraft, Aircraft Systems, Cockpit Environment and Human-machine Interface Characteristics Can Be Evaluated Before the Corresponding Configuration Is Fully Available for Flight. This Paper Presents a Development and Utilization Methodology for EDS Created for Combat Aircraft Development Program. The Paper Describes the Rationale for Establishing the Simulator, Its Principal Functional Components, the Relationship Between Aircraft Design Baselines and Simulation Baselines, the Integration of Mathematical and Behavioral Models, and the Iterative Process Through Which Pilot Feedback Is Transferred to Aircraft and Aircraft Systems Design Activities. A Quantitative Framework Is Proposed to Measure the Engineering Contribution of the EDS Through Requirement-oriented, PIL Testing. The Simulator’s Engineering Workload Is Demonstrated Using Project Data Compromising 1,200 Evaluated Requirements, 6,920 Test Points, 232 Simulator Test Runs and 360 Closed Engineering Findings. These Measured Data Are Used to Characterize Simulator Test Productivity and Establish a Flight-Test-Equivalent (FTE) Metric Based on the Assumed Number of Comparable Test Points Per Representative Flight Opportunity. A Scenario-based Flight-Test Reduction (FTR) Analysis Is Then Performed by Varying Both the Test Point Per Flight Assumption and the Corresponding Aircraft Flight Test Baseline. The Results Demonstrated How the Estimated Flight Test Contribution of the EDS Changes Under Different Baseline and Productivity Assumptions. The Simulator’s Engineering Approach Provides a Framework for Quantifying EDS Engineering Activity While Distinguishing Measured Simulator Results from Assumption-based Flight Test Equivalence. The EDS Therefore Provides a Repeatable PIL Environment in Which the Aircraft Development Issues Can Be Identified, Investigated and Resolved Before or in Parallel with Aircraft Flight Testing, Supporting Earlier Design Iteration and Reducing Dependence on the Aircraft for Initial Engineering Evaluation.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Engineering Development Simulator-Based Aircraft Development: A Pilot-in-the-Loop Engineering Approach AU - Aykut Oksuz Y1 - 2026/10/26 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11 T2 - American Journal of Aerospace Engineering JF - American Journal of Aerospace Engineering JO - American Journal of Aerospace Engineering SP - 28 EP - 39 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2376-4821 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajae.20261202.11 AB - Engineering Development Simulator (EDS) and Pilot Training Simulator (PTS) Serve Fundamentally Different Purposes in an Aircraft Development Program. PTS Are Normally Developed After the Aircraft Design Has Reached a Mature Configuration and the Functional and Behavioral Characteristics of the Aircraft Systems Have Been Exactly Defined for Pilot Trainings Aligned with Aircraft Delivery in the Program. In Contrast, EDS Is Established While Aircraft Design Is Still Evolving Through Program Plan. It Represents a Selected Design Baseline in a Real-time, Pilot-In-The-Loop (PIL) Environment So That Emerging Aircraft, Aircraft Systems, Cockpit Environment and Human-machine Interface Characteristics Can Be Evaluated Before the Corresponding Configuration Is Fully Available for Flight. This Paper Presents a Development and Utilization Methodology for EDS Created for Combat Aircraft Development Program. The Paper Describes the Rationale for Establishing the Simulator, Its Principal Functional Components, the Relationship Between Aircraft Design Baselines and Simulation Baselines, the Integration of Mathematical and Behavioral Models, and the Iterative Process Through Which Pilot Feedback Is Transferred to Aircraft and Aircraft Systems Design Activities. A Quantitative Framework Is Proposed to Measure the Engineering Contribution of the EDS Through Requirement-oriented, PIL Testing. The Simulator’s Engineering Workload Is Demonstrated Using Project Data Compromising 1,200 Evaluated Requirements, 6,920 Test Points, 232 Simulator Test Runs and 360 Closed Engineering Findings. These Measured Data Are Used to Characterize Simulator Test Productivity and Establish a Flight-Test-Equivalent (FTE) Metric Based on the Assumed Number of Comparable Test Points Per Representative Flight Opportunity. A Scenario-based Flight-Test Reduction (FTR) Analysis Is Then Performed by Varying Both the Test Point Per Flight Assumption and the Corresponding Aircraft Flight Test Baseline. The Results Demonstrated How the Estimated Flight Test Contribution of the EDS Changes Under Different Baseline and Productivity Assumptions. The Simulator’s Engineering Approach Provides a Framework for Quantifying EDS Engineering Activity While Distinguishing Measured Simulator Results from Assumption-based Flight Test Equivalence. The EDS Therefore Provides a Repeatable PIL Environment in Which the Aircraft Development Issues Can Be Identified, Investigated and Resolved Before or in Parallel with Aircraft Flight Testing, Supporting Earlier Design Iteration and Reducing Dependence on the Aircraft for Initial Engineering Evaluation. VL - 12 IS - 2 ER -
Advanced Training Systems, Turkish Aerospace (TA), Ankara, Turkey
Information