2.

Chapter 2 (Sherman Notes) Updated 9/16/15

1. Pitch Static Stability

The most common models for the lift and drag forces on an airfoil are:
CL C L0  CL  (1)

CD CDmin  K CL2 .
The key variable in (1) is the angle of attack, α. Let x cg denote the distance from the wing leading edge
( cg), and let x ac denote the distance from the wing leading edge to the
to the plane center of gravity (cg
xcg xac
plane areodynamic center
center (ac), Let h 
(ac), and hn  denote the scaled center of gravity and
c c
areodynamic center, respectively, where c is the airfoil mean chord length. Note that h may be in
relation to the airfoil itself, or to the vehicle to which it is attached. In these note, unless otherwise stated,
it will denote the distance from the nose of the airplane to the plane’s cg. Then the airfoil moment (scaled
by QSc ) is:

C m Cmac  C L ( h  hn ) Cmac  (C L0  C L  )(h  hn ) [C mac  C L0 ( h  hn )]  [C L ( h  hn )] C m0  Cm 
. (2)

A key parameter in (2) that controls the longitudinal stabil

stability
ity of the plane is the airfoil pitch moment
dCm
derivative: Cm  CL (h  hn ) . It should be noted that, since we require that C L  0 , it follows
d
that in order for the wing to be a stabilizing component of the plane (i.e. Cm  0 . See Example 1 below),
it must satisfy h  hn . Typically this condition does not hold. In other words, typically the wing is a
destabilizing component.

Example 1. Consider three planes have plots of Cm ( ) shown in Figure 1.

#3
2

) 0
a
(
m
C
#2
-2

-4
#1

-6

-8
-5 0 5 10 15
Angle
Angle of Attack, a (Degrees)

Figure 1. Plots of Cm ( ) for airplanes #1, #2, and #3.

 2.2

Plane #1 has Cm  0 , and so a positive perturbation in the pitch angle, α , results in a positive pitching
moment, thereby causing α to move further away from equilibrium. Hence, plane #1 is longitudinally
unstable. Plane #2 has C m  0 , and so one might suspect it is longitudinally stable. However, the
equilibrium point [i.e. the value of α0 such that C m ( 0 ) 0 ] is negative. This author is not aware of a
single plane whose wing is pitched downward. Hence, while, theoretically, plane #2 is longitudinally

stable, such a plane probably does not exist. Plane #3 has both Cm 0 and  0  0 . Hence, it is a
longitudinally
longitudinal ly stable real plane. □

Definition 1 For an airplane in a longitudina

longitudinally
lly balanced (or equilibrium) condition,
condition, with corresponding
angle of attack,  o , (where we will assume only the case  o 0 ), suppose that the airplane angle of
attack is changed to a value   o   . If the resulting non-zero pitch moment, Cm ( ) acts in a
manner to tend to bring the angle of attack back toward  o , then the airplane is said to have positive
pitch stiffness. If this moment acts in a manner to drive the angle of attack further away from  o , then
the airplane is said to have negative pitch stiffness. Mathematically, this is equivalent to the condition
Cm ( ) Cm ( )
that the pitch moment derivative satisfy  0 . Finally, if 0 , then the
   0
   0

airplane is said to have zero pitch stiffness (or, the plane is said to have neutral longitudinal stability.)
stability.)

The two main components of an airplane that contribute to its stability are the wing and the tail. Each
\component has exactly the same lift and moment behavior as that described by (1) and (2), respectively.
In the following two sections the details of these expressions will be summarized.

2.1 The Wing (or Wing/Body)

The following equations are for the pitch moment coefficients of the wing.

C Lw C L0  C L  (3) (2.7)
w w

Cmw Cm0  Cm  (4) Fig.2.6

w w

where Cm0 Cmac  CL0 ( h  hnw ) (5) (2.8)

w w w

and Cm C L ( h  hnw ) . (6) (2.9)

w w

The same equations hold for the wing/body; in which case the subscript ‘w ‘ w’ is replaced by the subscript
‘wb
wb’.
’. In this case, if only the wing(tail)-alone lift derivatives are given, then they must be corrected to
account for a finite aspect ratio. This correction is: C Lwb C Lw / 1  C Lw /( AR) .

2.2 The Tail

CLt CL  t CL [  (iw  it )   ] (7)

t t

where the variables in (7) are defined in Figure 2.7 on p.45 and in Figure 2.9 on p.47.
 2.3

Cmt Cm0  Cm  (8)

t t

where C m0 VH C L [ 0  (iw  it )] (9)

t t

 d 
and C m  VH C L  1  . (10)
t t
 d 

lt S t 2C Lw (  0 ) 2
Vt / 2 Qt d 2CL
     w

We have: VH cS , 0  AR w , Vw2 / 2 Qw , d 0  ARw . (11)

tail Volume ratio. The term  Qt / Q w is called the tail

The term V H is called the Horizontal tail
efficiency. Typically, 0.8    1.2 . The variable  is called the tail downwash angle.

The Entire Plane (i.e. wing/body + tail):

For the airplane lift we have (for  1 ):

S   S    S  
C L C Lwb   t  C Lt  C L0   t C L [  (iw  it )]    C L  C L  t     C L0  C L  .
 S  wb  S  t   wb t
 S 
(12)

For the airplane moment we have:


Cm  (Cm0wb  Cm wb  )  (Cm0t  Cmt  )  Cm0wb  Cm0t  Cm wb  Cmt   Cm0  Cm  . (13a)
   
 2.4

where, more explicitly: Cm0 Cm0wb  Cm0t  Cmac  C L0 (h  hnwb )  VH C L [ 0  (iw  it )]
wb wb t

(13b)
 d 
and: C m  C m  C m C L ( h  hnw )  V H C L  1  . (13c)
wb t wb t
 d 

[Note: Equations (13) are given in Nelson as equations (2.33-2.35). The latter equations include a
fuselage term that is ignored in (13). Those equations also include the subscript ‘‘w
w’; whereas in (13) the
subscript ‘wb
‘wb’’ is used.]

Example 1 [See Nelson EXAMPLE PROBLEMS 2.1 on p.49 and 2.2 on p.57.]
Given: the wing/body moment equation Cmwb  .05  .0035 , along with the following wing
information:
S 178 ft 2 ; b 35.9 ft ; c 5 ft ; hwb  xcg / c 0.1 ; AR 7.3 ; CLwb .07rad / deg ; CL( 0) 0.26 ; iw 2 o
. Also, use the following information:
lt 14.75 ft ; ARt 4.85 ; CL .073rad / deg ; CL( 0 )t 0.26 ; 1.0 .
t

Find: the tail S t and it so that the final plane has the moment equation: Cm .15  .025

Solution:
Solution:
(i)From (9) and (13b):
C m0 C m0  C m0 .15  (  .05) .20 V H C L [ 0  (iw  it )] V H (.073)[ 0  ( 2 o  it )] where
t wb t

2C Lw (  0 ) 2(.26)
from (11),  0   .0226rad 1.3o .
 ARw  (7.3)
(ii)From (10) and (13c):
 d   
C m C m  C m   .02 5  (  .0035)   .0215   VH C L  1     (1)V H (.07 3) 1  d 
t    
t wb
d d
 0   0 

d 2CL w 2(.07)(180 /  )
where from (11):   0.35 . Hence, we have
d 0  ARw  (7.3)

.0215 (1)VH (. 073)(. 65) , or VH .453 . From (11):

V c S .453(5)(178)
St  H  27.3 ft 2
lt 14 .75

Returning to (i): .20 .453(.073)[1.3  ( 2 o  it )] gives it   2.75o □

The Stick Fixed Neutral Point- Recall from Definition 1 that the plane will have neutral stability when
Cm ( )  d 
C 0    
   0
m . In view of (13c), this condition is: 0 C Lwb ( hn hnwb ) VH C Lt  1 d  .
 2.5


[Note that here we have defined the neutral point to be h h . Nelson denotes this as h NP in
n

(2.36) on p.56. Note also that for the wing/body alone the neutral point is hnwb hac In essence, it is how
far the cg can be shifted back until the plane becomes neutrally stable.]
VH C L  d  VH C L  d 
Hence, the plane neutral point is: hn hn wb  t
1   hac  t
1  .
C L  d  C L  d 
wb wb

(14)
Equation (14) is equation (2.36) on p.56 of Nelson.

Definition: The stick-fixed neutral

neutral point of a plane is defined as (14).

wing/body, hn hn wb hac . Whereas, for the entire plane it is greater by the amount
Notice that for the wing/body,

d 2C L
given by the additional term in (14). From (11), we have  w
. If this term is close to one,
d 0  AR w

then the neutral point will be close to that of the wing/body. In other words, the tail contributes a ‘factor
of safety’ in relation to how far aft the cg can move. [Note: Equation (14) ignores the body contribution
contribution
included in Nelson (2.36).]

Example 1 (continued). How much of a ‘cushion’ does the tail contribute to hn ?

VH C L  d  .0215
Answer:
t
1   0.307 and h  xcg / c 0.1 . Hence, it contributes quite a bit!
C L  wb
d  .07

Clearly, the difference h  hn plays a major role in relation longitudinal stability. For h  hn , we have
relation to longitudinal
Cm  0 , hence positive stiffness.
stiffness. This can always be achieved if the airplane CG is positioned
sufficiently toward the front of the airplane. The difference h  hn is of such importance, that the


negative of it is defined as the static margin: h
n  h Kn .

V H C L  d 
From (14), we have: hnwb hn  t
1 . (15)
C L
wb
 d 

While (14) is convenient for some purposes, it is not convenient for clearly understanding how a change
lt S t
in the plane scaled cg, h, influences its neutral point, hn . This is because the quantity V H 
cS
includes the term lt / c hnt  h Following Etkin, define lt / c hnt  hnwb . Then
lt / c (lt / c )  ( h  hnwb ) . Hence,
 2.6

l
lt S t  S  l S  S   S 
VH   t  ( h  hnwb )  t   t t   t  (h  hnwb ) VH   t  (h  hnwb ) . (16)
cS c   S  cS  S   S 

At this point, rather than using the above final equations, it is more expedient to recall the following:

 1 2  Mt
Mt  Lt lt   C  2 V S   lt
Lt t t
 C mt  1 V 2 Sc  VH C Lt . (17)
2
  St  
Using (16), this becomes: Cmt   VH    (h  hnwb ) C Lt . (18)
  S  

It follows that Cm Cmwb  Cmt  Cmac    S  

 C Lwb (h  hnwb )   VH   t  ( h  hnwb ) C Lt .
 S
wb
 
 S  
Gathering terms: Cm Cmac   C Lwb   t C Lt  ( h  hnwb )  VH C Lt . (19)
wb
  S  

Assumption::  (V / V ) 2 1 . Then in view of the leftmost
At this point we will make the following: Assumption
t

equality in (12), (19) becomes: C m C mac  C L ( h  hn wb )  V H C Lt . (20)

wb

C Lt
From (20) we have: C m C L (h  hnwb )  VH . (21)


C Lt
From (21) for the case of neutral pitch stability ( C m 0 )we have: 0 C L (hn  hnwb )  VH


(22)
V  C L
From (22) we have: hn hnwb   H  t
(23)
 CL  
  
 V  C L
From (22) we also
also have: h h   H  t
. (24)
n wb n
   
C L 

Substituting (24) into (21): C m C L (h  hn ) . (25)



Equation (25) is exactly what one might expect, assuming that the neutral point is, indeed, the plane
aerodynamic center.

For a given airplane configuration, suppose h is known. Solving (25) for hn gives:

hn h  (Cm / C L  ) . (26)
 2.7

 Cm /  dCm
Now note
note that Cm / CL    (27)
C L /  dC L

equation (26) becomes: hn h  ( dC m / dC L ) . (28)

Equation (28) provides an alternative to the use of pitch derivatives in experimentally estimating hn .

Notice that it holds

holds for any angle of attack
attack,, α. Experimental measurement of the amount of change in the
pitch moment coefficient
coefficient that results from a small change
change in the lift moment co
coefficient
efficient (generated by, for
example, a small change in α) will yield an estimate of hn . The accuracy of such an estimate can be
improved by repeating the test at a variety of specified values for α, and using the average.

Example 2. An aircraft is to be operated with its most rearward CG position limited to 25 ft. aft of the
apex of the wing. The distance between the wing and tail mean aerodynamic centers is lt 55 ft., the
distance to the wing/body aerodynamic center is x ac wb 21 ft., and the wing mean chord length is
c 19.26 ft. Estimate the area ratio S t / S , required to provide a control-fixed static margin,
margin,
hn  h  K n , of at least 0.05 at all times. Make the following assumptions:(A1)
assumptions:(A1) at awb ;(A2)
hnw  hnwb ;(A3) no power plant effects ;(A4)  /  0.25 .

Solution:: We are given: hc 25 ft , or h 25 / 19.26 1.30 . We are also given hnwb c 21 ft , or
Solution
hnwb 21 / 19.26 1.09 .

 St   lt   S   55  S 
From (16): VH     (h  hnwb )  t    (1.30  1.09)  t  ( 2.646)
 S  c   S   19.26   S

VH CL
 d   d  S  S 
hn  1   hn  VH  1   1.09  2.646 t  (.75) 1.09  1.985 t 
t

From (14): hn
wb
CL
 wb
 d 
wb
 d  S S

 St  St
        
Hence, hn Kn h .05 1.30 1.35 1.09 1.985  S  . Hence, S 0.131 □

2.3 Longitudinal Control

Deflection of the elevator through an angle  e will result in a change in both the lift and pitching
moment of the aircraft. A downward elevator motion is taken to be positive. It will produce positive lift
and negative pitching moment. If we assume these quantities are linear in  e , then we obtain:

C L C L   C L  e (29)
e

Cm Cm0  Cm   Cm  e (30)

e
 2.8

Example 3. Consider the NAVION airplane described in Table B.1 on p.400 of Nelson.

(a)When flying in the equilibrium condition with  e 0 , find the angle of attack,  o .
W 2750
Solution:: C L ( ,0) 
Solution  .40417 . Also,
2
0.5V S 0.5(.002377 )(.158 1116 .4) 2 (184 )
C L 4.44 / rad .
.40417
Hence,  o  .091rad 5.214 o
4.44
 2.9

(b) Notice that Cm0 is not given in Table B.1. Use your result in (a) to find it.

Solution:: 0 C m0  C m  o
Solution  C m0  C m  o  (  .683)(.091) .062 / rad .

(c) Find the values of  and  e needed for a vertical acceleration of 0.1g’s.
L  1.1W  3025#
Solution: Now the Lift is
Solution: , and so C L ( ,0) .4041(1.1) .4445 . Hence,
from (30):
0 Cm0  Cm   Cm  e or  C m0 C m   C m  e . This, along with (29) give the matrix equation:
e e

 .4445   C L C L      4.44 .355         .1007rad   5.77 o 

  .062  C       .0073rad  
e

C m    e    .683  .923   e 
. Hence, o .
   m e 
 e     .42 

(d) Is your answer your answer in (c) consistent with Figure 2.20 on p.63 of Nelson?
Answer: Yes. The trim angle of attack moved to the right when the elevator angle became negative.
Specifically, for this elevator setting we now have
C m ( ,  e  .42 o ) C m0  C m   C m (  .42  / 180o ) C m0  C m   (  .923)(  .42  / 180o )
e

(.0068  C m0 )  C m  C m0 ( e )  C m 

Notice that the Cm vs.  line has a smaller

intercept but has the same slope.

Q: What about the C L vs.  line?

The Derivatives C L e and Cme (The following corresponds to tth

he development iin
n Ne
Nelson.)

The Lift Derivative C Le : A deflection,  e , of the elevator will produce a lift force, Lt L , at
the tail of the plane, and hence a change in the corresponding lift coefficient:

 0.5Vt2 S t
L   Vt  2  S t 
C L        C L   S t  C L
2   V   S 
0.5V S  0.5Vt 2 S t 
t
 S t

dCLt dCLt d t
Write C Lt   e   e  CL   e where we have defined the parameter
d e d t d e t

 St  C L  St 
 d t / d e . We then have: C L   S  C Lt   e , or    S  C L t  .
e
 2.10

  St  
Hence: CL      CLt . (31)
e
  
S

The parameter  d t / d e is shown as a function of S e / S t

in Figure 2.21 on p.64 of Nelson.

Figure 2.21 on p.64 of Nelson

From Figure 2.9 of Nelson, the black line is the tail chord line for  e 0 . The blue line is the tail chord
line for a positive elevator angle (red).

Q: What about the C L vs.  line?

A: From (29): C L ( ,  e ) C L   C L e  e C L   C L0 ( e ) . In words, for a given  e , the lift line
intercept is changed. The slope remains the same. This is shown e  0
in the figure at the right. CL
 e 0

e  0

C L  e
e


The Moment Derivative C m e : The change in the plane pitching moment is described by:

Note that: C m  VH C Lt  VH C L t   e , or C m  V H C L t  .

 e

Hence: Cm   VH C L . (32)

e t

The quantity in (32) is called the elevator control power. Using (16), we can also express (32) as:

  St  
C m   VH    (h  hnwb ) C Lt  . (33)
e
  S  
Notice that (33) shows momentt derivative, C m e , changes, as a function of the plane
shows how the elevator momen

scaled cg location, h.
 2.11

Example 4. Consider again the NAVION plane addressed in Example 3. Find the elevator area, S e .
Solution:: While not given in Figure B.1 on p.401 of Nelson,
Solution Nelson, in EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2.2 on p.57, we
are given that S t 43 ft 2 . Hence, (see p.58), we have VH 0.66 . Assume that  1 . From the top of

p.58, we also have C Lt 3.91 / rad . Then from (32) and Table B.1 we have

 C m  (  .923)
e
 V C 0.358 . For this value, our estimate of S e / S t from Figure 2.21 on p.64 of
H L  .66( 3.91) 
t

Nelson is: S e / S t 0.17 . Hence, the elevator area is S e 0.17 St .17( 43) 7.31 ft 2 .


Expressions for  trim and  etrim - In the case of a trimmed condition,
condition, where C C m ( ,  e ) 0 ,
m

equations (29) and (30) yield:

 trim (Cm CL trim  C L Cm0 ) / det (34a)

e e

and  etrim  (Cm CL trim  CL Cm0 ) / det (34b)

where det CL Cm e  CL e Cm . (34c)

SEE IF YOU CAN DERIVE (34) from (28) & (29).

variables in (34) include CLtrim ,  trim , and  etrim . Specifying any one will determine
NOTE: The three variables

the other two. For example, a specified value for CLtrim will determine both  trim and  etrim .

Solving (34a) for CLtrim gives:

  CL   Cm   Cm 
CLtrim CL 1   e
     CL  0 . (35)

  CL   Cm   trim  Cm
e

   e   e 

Equation (35) is called the trimmed lift curve. There are a number of points to note in relation to this
curve:
Point 1:
1: The trimmed lift is a linear function of the trimmed angle of attack.

2: The rate change in the trimmed lift is smaller for  e 0 [i.e. the basic condition shown in
Point 2:
Figure 2.17 on p.37 of Etkin] than it is for  e  etrim  0 . Specifically, it is smaller by a fractional amount

 CL   Cm 
0 
e
    1.
 CL   Cm 
   e 
C C
Note that since both
both m e
and m
are negative, this quantity is positive. (See Remark 1 on p.21 of these
notes.)
 2.12

Point 3:
3: The zero-trimmed-lift angle of attack is no longer zero, but rather, is positive. Specifically, it is
 Cm    CL   Cm 
 trim   CL  0  / 1   e
   ; for CLtrim 0
 | Cm
e
|   CL   Cm 
 e      e 
4: The lift at  trim 0 is positive. Specifically:
Point 4:
 Cm 
CLtrim ( trim 0)  CL  0 .
e 
| Cm | 
 e 

These points are illustrated in Figure 2:

CL Basic ( e 0) Trimmed ( e  0)

  CL   Cm 
C L 1   e
  

  CL   Cm 
 Cm 
     e 
C L 0

e  | Cm | 
 e 
C L

 Cm    CL   Cm 
 CL   / 1 
0  e
  
 | Cm |  
e  CL   Cm 
  
e    e 

Figure 2. Plots of aircraft  (re: zero-lift) versus lift coefficient, C L for basic and trimmed conditions.
 2.13

Example 5. [Nelson. 2.4 on p.86] The C m versus  curves for various values of  e are shown below.

We also have: (i) C L .03  .08  (deg .) , and (ii)  15o  e 15o .

(a)Estimate the fixed stick neutral point.

Solution:: From (26), we have hn
Solution h  (Cm / C L ) . From the above figure,
 

dC m  .3  (  .12)
C m    .012 / deg . From (i) we have C L .08 / deg . From the upper right
d 15

corner of the figure, we have h .25 . Hence,

hn .25  (  .012 / .08) .4 .
dC m  .12  .02
Solution:: C m e 
(b)Estimate the control power, C m e . Solution   .028 / deg
d e 10  5
(c)Find the forward cg limit.
Solution::
Solution
(i) Clearl
Clearly,
y, th
thee larges
largestt value of h is the neutral point, h NP hn . A larger value will result in a plane
value
that is statically unstable. The smallest value of h is not related to stability, but rather to the
ability to trim the plane at large values of C L (e.g. when landing the plane). From the figure, we
have:
C L max .03  .08 (15o ) 1.23 .
(i
(ii) thee cg is moved forward, the C m versus
i) As th  curves in the figure will become steeper. In other
words, the magnitude of Cm will increase. This must be countered by an increase in the elevator

moment. If we assume that C m e is not significantly influenced by the movement of the cg, then
the maximum positive elevator moment is:

Cmmax Cm  emax  .028 (  15) 0.42 .
e

(i
(iii
ii)) From
From (30
(30)) at
at the
the tr
trim
im co
cond
ndit
itio
ion,
n, we have:: C mtrim 0 C m0  Cm  max  C me  emax , or
have
Cm  (Cm0  Cm  emax ) /  max .
e

From the figure (  e 0 o line in RED), m0 0.17 . Hence,

Cm  (.17  .42) / 15   .039 .

 2.14

(iv) Again, from (26) have: h hn  (Cm / CL  ) 0.4  (  .039 / .08)  .087 . In words, the
(26) we have:
forward cg limit is slightly ahead of the front of c . □

Example 6. [Nelson Problem 2.10 on p.90] The airplane in Example 5 has the following hinge moment
characteristics:
C L
w
.09 / o ; C Lt .08 / o ; Ch   .00 3 / o ; Ch0 0 ; Ch   .00 5 / o ; Ch0 0 ; S e / S t .35 ; VH .4 ; d
.
Find the stick free neutral point.
C L C L C h
Solution:: From (2.64) on p.70: hn hn  (1  f )VH 1  d / d  where f 1 
t e t
Solution . The
C L C h C L
w e t

  St  
only quantity not given is CLe . From (31), we have CL      CLt . The only quantity in this
e
  
S
expression not given is  ; which can be estimated from Nelson FIGURE 2.21 on p.64 as:  .55 . We
o
then obtain C L e .0154 / , and then f .88 . From Example 5 we found hn .4 . Finally,

hn .4  .0256 .3744 . Notice that this stick

stick free neutral point lies ahead of the stick
stick fixed neutral
point. □
 2.15

2. Yaw (Directional) Static Stability [Nelson p.73]

The yaw angle,  , is defined to be positive if the

plane is yawing left,
left, as shown in Figure 2.28 of
of Nelson.
Recall that clockwise moments are defined to be positive
moments. Hence, for the situation shown in this figure,

a positive tail rudder moment is needed to eliminate

the yaw. The graph in this figure reflects this fact, in
relation to the yaw moment derivative, Cn .

Definition 2.2.1 An airplane posseses directional,

or weathercock stability if C n  0 .
The yaw moment has two contributions: one associated
with the wing/fuselage, and the other associated with the
rudder.
Figure 2.28 on p.73 of Nelson. Static directional stability.

The wing/fuselage contribution-

S fs l f
Repeating (2.73) on p.74 of Nelson here: Cn  k n k Rl (/ deg) . (36)
wb Sb
The quantities S and b are the wing area and length, respectively. The new quantities introduced in (36)
include:
k n = an empirical wing/body interference factor that is a function of the fuselage geometry.
k Rl = an empirical correction factor that is a function of the fuselage Reynolds number.
S fs = the projected side area of the fuselage.
l f = the total length of the fuselage (from nose tip to back of tail).

The parameter k Rl is related to the body Reynolds number

Rl f V l f / as shown in Nelson Figure 2.30 at the right.

[Note:  is the kinematic viscosity of the air.]

Figure 2.30 (p.75) Reynold number correction.

While k Rl is straightforward to obtain. The interference factor k n is not. For this reason, I have chosen
to include Figure 2.29 (p.75), along with enhancements, on the following
f ollowing page of these notes.
 2.16

Figure 2.29 on p.75 of Nelson. Wing/body interference factor k n

The path in red illustrates how k n is arrived at. One begins with knowledge of x m / l f , where x m is the
2
distance from the tip of the nose to the plane cg. Knowledge of (l f / S fs ) gives the first leg of the path.
Knowledge of the shown fuselage height ratio h1 / h2 gives the second leg. Knowledge of the ratio
h/ wf

completes the third leg, allowing one to then estimate k n in the fourth and final leg.
 2.17

The vertical tail contribution-

The magnitude of the side force acting on the vertical tail can be expressed as:

Yv   CL  v (Qv Sv ) where we have assumed CL  0 . (2.75) (37)

v v

The vertical angle of attack,  v is :  v    (38)


where is the sidewash angle [See Figure 2.31 on p.76 of Nelson]. From (37) and (38) we have:

C Lv  C L  v  C L (    ) . (39)
v v

dCLv    
From (39):   CL  1    CL . (40)
d v
  

It is important to note that C L  0 is necessary for yaw stability. It is also important to have the explicit

definition (40) of CL . No such definition is given in the development on pp.74-77 of Nelson; even
though this parameter is one of the many included, for example, in the NAVION Table B.
B.11 on p.400.

It follows that the restoring moment produced by the vertical tail is:

 CL 
Nv  Yvlv lvCLv (    )(Qv Sv )  lv  
 (    )(Qv Sv ) . (41)
 1   /  
 

This moment is positive due to the fact that the force (37) is in the negative y direction, and it is applied at
the negative x location lv .

Note: Equation (37) is consistent with (2.74) on p.74 of Nelson. However, the middle equality in (39) is
not consistent with the middle equality in (2.76). This differs from (39) by a minus sign. The rightmost
equalities of (39) and (2.76) are the same. Hence, it would appear that a minus sign is missing from the
middle equality of (2.76). While this point may seem minor,
m inor, it can cause confusion as to the sign
convention concerning the yaw angle,  , and the sidewash angle,  . Specifically, (38) suggests that
 increases the rudder angle of attack,  v . Now, consider the figure below.
 2.18

[From Mechanics of Flight

Flight by W. Phillips]

This figure illustrates that the sidewash actually decreases the rudder angle of attack. In other words, (38)
should be  v    . In Etkin we find  v     ; but only because of his sign convention for  v .
In fact, as noted by Phillips, there is no accepted convention for either the yaw or the sidewash angle. The
only way that Nelson’s expression (38) is consistent with sidewash reducing the rudder angle of attack is
if  is assumed to be negative. If we make this assumption, then the yaw moment derivative given in
(43) below is actually reduced as a result of the sidewash gradient.

From (41) we have:

CL
Cn v  Vvv    (    ) (42)
 1   /  
 

The vertical tail stability derivative is, therefore:

 C
Cn   n   VvvCL . (43)


Clearly, from (40) and (43) we have C L  0 and Cn   0 . Even so, in the case of the NAVION plane in

Table B.1 on p.400 of Nelson, we see that CL  .074 and Cn   .071 . No, we are given
Cl   .074 . Even so, we know that we still have C L  0 . We can deduce that there is a typo in this
 2.19

second term, and that it should be Cn .071 . Were this not the case, then the NAVION plane would
not have weathercock stability!

Nelson then offers on p.76 the following “s

“simple
imple algebraic equation”:
equation”:

 d  Sv / S zw
v  1  d  0.724  3.06 1  cos  c / 4 w  0.4 d  0.009 ARw (44)

where zw is the distance. parallel to the z-axis,

z-axis, from the wing root quarter chord point to the fuselage
centerline, where d is the fuselage maximum vertical depth, and where  c / 4 w is the sweep of the wing
quarter chord (i.e. the amount of angle that the wing is ‘swept’ back from perpendicular to the body at the
¼ chord location).

Yaw Control Using the Rudder-

We must be clear as to the sign convention related to the rudder.

For this reason, we include Figure 2.32 on p.77 at the right.
From this figure, we see that if the yaw angle  is positive, then
the rudder angle  r should be negative in order to right the plane.

Applying a negative  r will produce a negative C Lr C Lr  r . This

implies that the rudder lift derivative CL r  0 . Hence, the rudder
moment will be: Figure 2.32 of Nelson.


Cnr  Vvv C Lr   Vvv CL  r  C n  r . (45)
r r

The rudder moment derivative C n r   Vv v C L r is referred to as the rudder control effectiveness.
The rudder lift derivative given in (2.86) on p.78 is:

 dC L dC Lv d v 
C L  v
 C L  (46)
r
d r d v d r v

d v 
where the parameter  can be estimated from Figure 2.21 on p.64. Using (40):
d r
dCLv    
  CL  1    CL (40)
d v
  
we can also write (46) as:
 2.20

 C L 
CL 
r  .
1

Cn  Cn 
REMARK 1: From (43) and the leftmost equality in (45) we have:  r
. (47)
C L C L
r

 d v in (46). Suppose that (47) condition holds,

To prove that this result leads to the definition of  
d r

d v
and suppose that (46) holds: CL r CLv  . We will prove that   .
d r

Cn  Cn  Cn   Cn    CL   dC / d   dC / d   d   d  d
Proof:  r
 r
   r     n r
  L
    v   v □
C L CL CL   Cn   CL 
  dCn / d   dCL / dv   d r   d  d r
r v     v 

 Cn   CL 
r  .
From the above proof, it follows
f ollows that:   (48)
 Cn   CL 
    v 

  
From (40), we have: CL   CL /  1   . (49)
v
  

 Cn    
Substituting (48) into (49) gives:    r   1  . (50)
 Cn    
  
If the sidewash derivative  /  is known, then  can be computed directly, as opposed to being
estimated from Figure 2.21 on p.64. Notice that because Cnr  0 and C n   0 , it follows that   0 .

   Cn 
  
From (50) we also have:  1
     C n  . (51)
 r 

Example 7. Find the permissible range of values for  /  for the NAVION plane.
Solution:: The derivatives given in Table B.1 on p.400 of Nelson are:
Solution

Cl  .074 / rad ; Cn  .071/ rad

rad ; Cl .107 / rad
rad ; Cn  .072 / rad .
r r

Before proceeding any further, two points related to these values must be made:
 2.21

Point 1: Since Cn   0 corresponds to weathercock instability,

instability, there is a mistake. We will assume it is a

simple sign error. Hence, Cn .071 .

Point 2: The parameters Cl   .074 / rad ; C l r .107 / rad are not the parameters C L ; C L r . They

are roll moment derivatives associated with the side lift forces L and L r . As such, they are related to
the vertical tail cg. This point illustrates the importance of notation. For example, on p.21 we have (1.64):

L Cl QS
QSll Rolling moment.
Hence, Cl is a scaled moment. It then follows that, for example, Cl  dC l / d Cl  .

   C n 
From (51) we have:   1    1   .071   1  .66 .
   Cn   .107 
 r 

From Figure 2.21 on p.64 we observe that 0  0.8 . Hence,  1    0.47 . Notice that the

sidewash gradient must be negative. This is consistent with the discussion following (42) above. □

Example 8. [Problem 2.13 on p.91 of Nelson] Size the vertical tail for th
thee airplane configuratio
configuration
n shown
below so that its weathercock stability parameter, Cn 0.1 / rad . Assume V 150 m / s at sea level.
S 21.3m2 ; b 10.4m ; zw 0.4m ; d 1.6m ; l f 13.7m ; xm 8m ; w f 1.6m ; S f s 15.4m ; h h1 1

S fs l f
Solution:: From (36) we have: C n  wb  k n k Rl
Solution (/ deg) . We desire to have
Sb

Cn  0.1 / rad .0017 / o .

 2.22

From xm / l f 8 / 13.7 0.58 and Figure 2.29 (red), we have kn .0015 . At sea level,

 1.46(10  5 ) m 2 / s , and so Rl f 141(106 ) . In relation to Figure 2.30, this gives k Rl 2 . Hence,

.0015( 2)(15.4)(13.7)
Cn   .0029 / o  .166 / rad .
wb
21.3(10.4)

Hence, the tail must contribute C nt C n  C nwb 0.1  (  .166) .266 / rad . And so, from (42):
 d 
Cn .266 VvvCL  1   .
t v
 d 

lv Sv lv Sv
Now: Vv   .0045 lv Sv . Also, from the ‘simple algebraic equation’ (44):
Sb 21.3(10.4)
 d  Sv / S z
v  1   .274  3.06  .4 w  .009 ARw ,
 d  1  cos  c / 4 w d
where ARw b2 / S 10.42 / 21.3 5.08 , and where the maximum fuselage depth d h1 1.6 .
Hence,

 S v / 21.3 .4 
Cn  .266 (.0045lv Sv )CL  .274  3.06  .4  .009 (5.08)  , or
t v
 1  cos  c / 4 w 1.6 

 Sv 
.266 (.0045lv Sv )CL  .274  .1437  .1457 . (e7.1)
v
 1  cos  c / 4 w 

There are a number of parameters related to (e7.1) and (e7.2) that still are not known. In the solution
manual of Nelson, it is now assumed that: lv 4m and CLv 0.1 / 5.73 / rad . The solution makes
o

no mention of an assumption of a value for  c / 4 w

Here, we will asume  c / 4 w 15o .262 rad .

Then (e7.1) becomes:

.266 .103Sv  .073Sv  .42 

2
 .073Sv  .42 Sv  2.58 0  Sv1, 2  9.48 , 3.73 . Hence,

Sv 3.73 m2
 2.23

[The author’s answer was Sv 3.9m2 ; the difference due to his choice of a different value for  c / 4 w .]
□

QUESTION: For the designed vertical tail, does the sidewash gradient have a stabilizing or destabilizing
effect? In other words, does it make Cn  larger or smaller?

 d  3.9 / 21.3 / S .4
ANSWER:  v  1   .274  3.06  .4  .009 (5.08) .645 . Hence,
 d  1  cos(.262) 4

2
 1 . In words, the sidewash gradient will b negative for v  Vv 
d .645
   .645 , or for
d v V
 w 
Vv
 0.8 . It is hard to imagine that a speed ratio less than 0.8 is possible. Hence, we can conclude that
Vw
the sidewash gradient is negative. Because it is negative, it reduces the yaw derivative, and so has a
destabilizing effect per this metric. [Note: From (39): CLv  CLv  v CLv (    ) and the fact that

 ( /  )  with  /   0 , we see that the amount of yaw is reduced when the sidewash angle
is included. While this is a good thing, our definition of static stability is related to the moment needed to
right the plane; not to the amount of yaw the plane is experiencing.]

2.3 Roll Stability [p.78 of Nelson]

On p.78 we have the following definition

definition of static roll stability:

“An airplane posseses static roll stability

stability if a restoring moment is developed when it is disturbed from a
wings-level attitude.”

REMARK 3. The author then goes on to say: “The roll moment created on an airplane when it starts to
sideslip depends on the wing dihedral, …”, and later, “When an airplane is disturbed from a wings-level
attitude, it will begin to sideslip…”. These two statements suggest that, on the one hand, a small roll angle
will generate sideslip that, in turn will generate more roll, while on the other hand, it is sideslip that
generates the roll. If, for example, a lateral wind gust were to generate sideslip with the wing-level
attitude maintained, would the plane begin to roll? I would suspect not. Now, one might argue that, in
reality, there would always be at least a slight amount of roll generated by such a gust. And, in the case of
a positive dihedral, this would be a positive roll. I can accept this explanation. However, I would then
argue that it is the roll perturbation that is the origin of the roll, and that the attendant sideslip simply
increases the roll once it has begun.

Nelson illustrates
illustrates the development of roll
roll in Figure 2.33 on
p.79 (shown at the right
right here). In this illustration
illustration only roll
is indicated. It may well be that the roll perturbation will
 2.24

result in attendant sideslip. [I am by no means an expert in this

area, and so I would accept such a possibility.] [Notice that
in this figure the term C1 is a typo. It should be Cl  . This
figure is from Nelson’s first edition. It is corrected in the
second edition.]
Figure 2.33 on p.79.

Nelson then goes on to state, as well as illu

illustrate
strate in this figure,
figure, that “The requirement for (roll)
(roll) stability is
that Cl   0 .” Unfortunately, he never gives an explicit expression for Cl  . [As stated in Point 2 on p.18

of these notes, Cn is the yaw moment (about the vertical tail cg) derivative. ] From p.21 we have L=roll

moment. Hence, Cl =L/(QSl). Hence, Cl  = dCl/dβ. Nelson presumes the student is well aware of this
notation. With this in mind, it should then be clear that for a perturbed positive roll, L, caused by side slip
β, the restoring moment must be negative. In this event, we will have C l   0 .

The geometry associated with a roll angle  is shown in Figure 2.34 on p.80:

Figure 2.34 Influence of the dihedral  on the lateral velocity of each side of the wing for a roll angle
 .

The roll angle  differs from the angle of attack,  , and the sideslip angle,  , in that its reference is
not the plane body coordinates, but rather the direction of gravity. In order to gain a better picture of
exactly how  relates to the roll moment derivative Cl  , we will briefly digress from Nelson (where it
 2.25

is not clear at this point) to Etkin. However, we will begin this digression by recalling Figure 1.10 on
p.20:

This is L

In the absence of any sideslip (  0 ) and of any roll (  0 ), the velocity relative to the plane body
coordinates is:

 cos x   u 
V V
 0   v 
   . (E3.11.1)
 sin  x   w
After rolling through an angle   0 about the body x-axis,
x-axis, it can be shown that the velocity becomes:

1 0 0   cos  x   cos  x   u 
' 
V V 0 0 sin 
  0
     
V sin  x sin   v  .
       (E3.11.2)
 0 0 cos   sin  x   sin  x cos    w

Notice that the roll

roll has not only reduced the
the velocity component
component w. It has also created a sideslip velocity

v  V sin  x sin  ! From equation (1.68) of Nelson, we have:

 2.26

 v
 sin  1  1
 sin (sin  x sin  )  x sin   x . (E3.11.3)
V 
The second rightmost approximate equality assumes small  x . If, in addition, we assume that  is also
small, then we obtain the rightmost approximate equality. Equation (E3.11.3) is exactly the relation
between  and  that Nelson omits.
As a result of this roll-induced positive sideslip,  , the plane will have roll static stability (i.e. positive
roll stiffness) if the plane generates a negative roll moment. This roll moment is denoted as:

C l C l  C l  x . (E3.11.4a)

The roll moment derivative is: Cl  Cl  x . (E3.11.5b)

Hence, for static roll stability we must have C l  0 AND  x  0 .

Remark. The quantity C l appears to be the roll moment derivative with respect to the sideslip angle,
 . Indeed it is. However, the sideslip angle was generated by the roll angle  . The chosen notation for

C l hides this fact.

For small sideslip this becomes:  v / u . Because of the dihedral, the change in the angle of attack of
the right (lower) wing is:
vn v sin  v
      (56)
u u u

The change in the left (upper) wing angle of attack is simply the negative of (56).

Roll Control-
Roll control is achieved by differential deflection of the ailerons. In relation
to Figure 2.36. consider an incremental lift, ( y ) ,at a location y along the
aileron. The corresponding rolling moment increment is:

L ( y ) y  [CQ(c dy)] y . (57)

In (57) the parameter C is the aileron section lift coefficient. For clarity,
we will rename this as C La . Note that this is not the same ‘animal’

as CL , which is a pitch lift derivative. Nor is it the roll moment

moment coefficient Figure 2.36 on p.82
Cl !!! Scaling (57) by
 2.27

L C La cy dy
QSb gives: Cl   . (58) We will now
QSb Sb

express the aileron lift coefficient C La as: C La C L  a . (59)

a

 a  
From (59) we then have: C La C L  a C L    a C L   a . (60)
 a 
a a a

(C L    )cy dy
Cl  a
(61)
Sb
If we multiply (61 ) by 2 in order to account for both ailerons, and integrate over the aileron span, we
obtain:
y2
2CL   
Cl 
Sb
a
cy dy .
y1
(62)

y2
2CL 
Hence: Cl
a

Sb
a
cy dy .
y1
(63)

C C
Notice in (63) Nelson
Nelson uses the notation instead of la , suggesting that this lift coefficient
l w
derivative is equal to the wing lift coefficient derivative. In view of this, the following explicit assumption
should be stated: “We will assume that Cla Clw ”.

The Influence of the aileron width and position on the control power-

    1 
Recall that for a tapered wing: c c r  1    y . (64)
  b/2  
From (64) we see that the wing tip chord length is a fraction,  , of the the root chord length.

Hence,
y2 y2 y
    1   y 2    1  y 3  2 cr  2  4    1  3 
cy dy       y2  y1        y2  y13  .
2
cr 1   b / 2  y  y dy cr   
y1 y1
     2  b / 2  3  y1 2   3  b  
(65)
that: y 22  y12 2  a a
Now, it is easy to show that: and y 23  y13  a ( 3 a2  .25 2a ) (66)
y1  y2
where  a  y 2  y1 is the aileron width, and  a  is the position of the center of the aileron
2
along the wing. Substituting (66) into (65) gives:
y2
 1   2 
cy dy c 
y1
r a   a   b  (2 a  .167  a )
  
2


.

(67)
Substituting (67) into (63) gives:
 2.28

2C L  cr  a   1   2 2 
Cl   a
 a    ( 2 a  .167  a ) . (68)
a
Sb   b  

Case: Suppose that 2 a2  .167 2a 2( a2  .083 2a ) 2 a2 . Then (68) becomes:
Special Case:

2CLa  cr  a a   1   
Cl    1   / 2  a  . (69)
Sb  b  
a

The moment derivative (68) is called the aileron roll control power. Equations (68) and its approximation,
(69), give an explicit description of the influence of various key parameters on the control power. For

 1     
example, as the term   2a (1   ) a   1 the control power goes to zero. Let
 b   b/2

a /(b / 2) ra denote the ratio of the aileron center position to the half-wing span. Then

 1  
  2 a (1   ) ra . For this quantity to approach 1, we must have   0 and ra  1 . The first
 b 

condition is physically possible,
possible, but the second is not for an ailerion with width 0 . Even so, we see
clearly how  and ra influence the relative static roll stability.

The optimum aileron position-

Cl  1   b/2
a
0 1    4 a  a
opt
 . For  0.5 ,  aopt b / 2 , which implies that the
a  b  2(1   )

center should be as near to the tip as possible. For  0.25 ,  aopt b / 3 . □

Example 9 [Problem 2.14 on p.91 of Nelson]

Figure P2.14 shows the wing planform for an aivation business

airplane. Determine the roll control power. [Assume that the


aileron section lift coefficient is C L a 0.1 / .
o

Solution::
Solution
2
b
Step 1: S  21.3m 2 and AR  5.08 . Hence,
S
CL 5.75
CL  
a
 4.21 / rad
a
1  CL /( AR) 1  5.73 /( * 5.08)
w

Step 2: Using c a / c .25 in Figure 2.20 gives  0.48

Step 3:   1.34 .487 .  a 4.8  3.4 1.4 . a  4.8  3.4 4.4 .

2.75 2
 2.29

2C L  cr  a   1   2 2 
Step 4: Cl  a
 a    (2 a  .167  a ) 0.17 / rad . □
a
Sb   b  