See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260402342

Calculation of the Longitudinal Stability Derivatives of a Transport Aircraft

and Analysis of Longitudinal Modes

Article · May 2007

CITATIONS READS

5 1,941

3 authors:

Ugur Ozdemir Elbrous M Jafarov

Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
13 PUBLICATIONS   146 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   461 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. Kavsaoğlu
Anadolu University
41 PUBLICATIONS   162 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elbrous M Jafarov on 11 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modeling & Simulation, Istanbul, Turkey, May 27-29, 2007 106

Calculation of the Longitudinal Stability Derivatives of a Transport Aircraft

and Analysis of Longitudinal Modes

UĞUR ÖZDEMİR1 ELBROUS M. JAFAROV2 MEHMET Ş. KAVSAOĞLU3

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Istanbul Technical University
Maslak, 34469 Istanbul
TURKEY

Abstract: -In this study, the longitudinal stability derivatives of a transport aircraft have been calculated by modeling
the aircraft configuration and flight condition. The applying method is able to use for all sizes of civil and military
aircrafts. As a second step, the longitudinal motion of aircraft is investigated and the transfer functions of linearized
equations of motion have been obtained. Phugoid and short period modes have been investigated. Frequency-response
and transient-response analysis have been performed respectively by using Matlab Simulink.

Key-Words: - Longitudinal stability derivatives, phugoid and short modes, time-response.

1 Introduction elevator and rudder control surfaces are determined and

During the dynamic modeling of aircrafts, stability shown in Fig. 1-7 respectively.
derivatives are generally obtained from the experimental
or previous studies about the related aircraft. Therefore,
obtaining new derivatives of an aircraft whose
derivatives have not calculated yet is difficult for
researchers. The Advanced Aircraft Analysis (AAA)
program applies to most fixed wing configurations (civil
or military) and permit engineers to fast calculate Fig.1 Fuselage Geometry
stability derivatives straightforwardly [1-4]. In this
study, a longitudinal motion of a transport aircraft has
been studied. This aircraft model approximately
represents the characteristic of Boeing 737-400. Firstly,
configuration modeling and result have been given.
Secondly, the transfer functions of longitudinal
linearized equations of motion have been obtained.
Phugoid and Short Period modes have been investigated.
Finally, frequency-response and transient-response
Analyses have been performed respectively.
Fig.2 Wing Geometry
2 AAA Analyses

2.1 Configuration Modeling in AAA

Configuration of the aircraft has been set in Geometry
Module of AAA. The aim of the Geometry module assist
the user to characterize the geometry of the fuselage,
wing, horizontal tail, vertical tail and work out related
parameters [1-4]. After the parameters of the aircraft are
set, corresponding plots have been obtained.
Configuration modeling parameters of the aircraft:
fuselage, wing, horizontal and vertical tails, aileron, Fig.3 Horizontal Tail Geometry
 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modeling & Simulation, Istanbul, Turkey, May 27-29, 2007 107

These parameters are used in determining of stability

derivatives and transfer functions.

2.1 Results of the AAA

The steady-state flight conditions and longitudinal
stability derivatives are obtained by using AAA
programming the result of which are presented in Table
1.

Table 1 The calculation results

Steady State Flight Speed: U1 = 537,0 km/hr
Airplane Current Weight: Wcurrent = 500000,0 N
Fig.4 Vertical Tail Geometry
Wing Area: S w = 105,00 m2
Steady State Pitch Attitude: θ1 = 3,0 deg
Wing Mean Geometric Chord: cw = 4,05 m
Airplane Moment of Inertia about the
Y-body Axis: I yy B = 2552412,6 2 kg-m2
Steady State Flight Mach Number: M1 = 0,459
Dynamic Pressure in Steady State:
q1 = 9151,60 N/m2
Fig.5 Aileron Geometry Wing Loading at Current Flight Condition
W / S = 4761,90 N/m2
Forward Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
as a Result of a Unit Change in Speed:
X u = -0,0082 s-1
Forward Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
due to Thrust as a Result of a Unit Change in
Speed: X T u = -0,0000 s-1
Forward Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
as a Result of a Unit Change in Angle-of-attack:
X α = 5,2770 m/ s2
Vertical Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
as a Result of a Unit Change in Speed:
Z u = -0,1476 s-1
Fig.6 Elevator Geometry Vertical Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
as a Result of a Unit Change in Angle-of-attack:
Zα = -102,0394 m/s2
Vertical Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
as a Result of a Unit Change in Rate of Change
of Angle-of-attack: Zα& = -0,6563 m/s
Vertical Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane
as a Result of a Unit Change in Pitch Rate:
Z q = -2,0160 m/s
Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the
Airplane as a Result of a Unit Change in Speed:
M u = 0,0023
Fig.7 Rudder Geometry
 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modeling & Simulation, Istanbul, Turkey, May 27-29, 2007 108

Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the where

Airplane due to Thrust as a Result of a Unit
Change in Speed: M T u =0,0000 1/m.s q = change of angular velocity about Y axis.
Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the θ = change of pitching angle
Airplane as a Result of a Unit Change of Angle-
of-attack: M α = -2,7367 s-2 and taken into account the following, for small
perturbations
Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the
w
Airplane due to Thrust as a Result of a Unit α≈ ⇒ w = αU1 and w& = α&U1 ,
Change in Angle-of-attack: M T α = 0,0000 s-2 U1
Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the equation (1) with zero initial conditions can be
Airplane as a Result of a Unit Change in Rate of represented in Laplace transform as follows:
Change of Angle-of-attack: M α& = -0,1915 s-1 ⎡ u ( s) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the ⎡( s − X u − X Tu ) − Xα g cosθ1 ⎤ ⎢ δ e ( s) ⎥ ⎡ X δe ⎤
⎥ ⎢ α ( s) ⎥ ⎢
Airplane as a Result of a Unit Change in Pitch
⎢
⎢ − Zu [s(U1 − Zα& ) − Zα ] [ − ( Z q + U1 ) s − g sin θ1 ⎥ ] = Z ⎥
⎢ δ e ( s) ⎥ ⎢ δe ⎥
Rate: M q = -0,6106 s-1
⎢ − (M u + M T )
⎣ [M α& s + M α + M Tα ] (s − M q S )
2 ⎥⎢
⎦ θ ( s) ⎥ ⎢⎣ M δe ⎥⎦
⎢ ⎥
u

⎣⎢ δ e ( s) ⎦⎥
Forward Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane (2)
as a Result of a Unit Change in Elevator
Deflection Angle: X δe = -0,1921 m/ s2 Equation (2), the characteristic equation for longitudinal
Vertical Acceleration Imparted to the Airplane motion can be obtained as:
as a Result of a Unit Change in Elevator
Deflection Angle: Zδe =-9,3490 m/ s2 ( s − X u − X Tu ) − Xα g cos θ1
CE = − Zu [s(U1 − Zα& ) − Zα ] [− (Z q + U1 )s − g sin θ1 ] = 0
Pitch Angular Acceleration Imparted to the − ( M u + M Tu ) [M α& s + M α + M Tα ] (s 2 − M q S )
Airplane as a Result of a Unit Change in (3)
Elevator Deflection Angle: M δe = -2,7284 s-2
Substitutiong the parameters from Table 1, we can
calculate CE as:
3 Longitudinal Dynamics
In this section the longitudinal equations of motion are 491.5451S 4 + 731.3739 S 3 + 1533.7677 S 2
derived. The parameters of phugoid and short modes are + 15.5175 S + 20.5709 = 0
obtained. or factoring,
(4)
3.1 Longitudinal Linearized Equations of 491.5451 ( S + 1.4842S + 3.1013)
2

Motions ( S 2 + 0.0037 S + 0.0135) = 0

The general longitudinal linear equations of aircraft with
the assumption of initial trimmed flight and the wings Then from CE we can obtain the phugoid and short
level condition can be presented as follows [5]; periods modes parameters: the roots, natural frequencies,
damping ratios and the time required for the oscillation
u& = − gθ cos cosθ1 + X u u + X Tu u + X αα + X δeδ e
(1) to damp to one-half amplitude as follows:
w& − U1q = − gθ sin θ1 + Z u u + Zα α + Zα&α& + Z q q + Zδeδ e 0.693
q& = M u u + M Tu u + M αα + M Tα α + M αα + M α&α& + M q q + M δeδ e T1 / 2 pm =
ξω n
where; Phugoid Short Period
u = change of velocity in longitudinal flight; ξ pm = 0.016 ξ sp = 0.421
α = change of angle of attack in longitudinal flight;
w = change of velocity in Z direction; rad rad
ω n = 0.1162 ω n = 1.1761
δ e = elevator deflection; s
sp
pm
s
T1 / 2 pm = 372 sec = 6.21 min T1 / 2 sp =1.026 sec
Defining
q = θ&, q& = θ&& These values are is quite typical.
 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modeling & Simulation, Istanbul, Turkey, May 27-29, 2007 109

3.2 Longitudinal Transfer Functions for Elevator N α = Aα s 3 + Bα s 2 + Cα s + Dα

Displacement where;
Each of the three longitudinal transfer functions can be
determined by using Cramer’s rule [5]. Aα = Zδe
Bα = X δe Z u + Zδe{− M q − ( X u + X Tu )} + M δe (U1 + Z q )
u (s) N u
3.2.1 = Cα = X δe{(U1 + Z q )( M u + M Tu ) − M q Z u }
δ e ( s ) D1
X δe − Xα g cos θ1 + Zδe M q ( X u + X Tu )
{s(U 1 − Z α& ) − Z α } {−( Z q + U 1 ) s + g sin θ1}
Z δe
+ M δe{− g sin θ1 − (U1 + Z q )( X u + X Tu )}
Nu M δe − {M α& s + M α + M Tα } (s 2 − M q s)
D1
=
( s − X u − X Tu ) − Xα g cos θ1
Dα = − X δe ( M u + M Tu ) g sin θ1 − Zδe ( M u + M Tu ) g cos θ1
− Zu {s (U 1 − Z α& ) − Z α } {−( Z q + U 1 ) s + g sin θ1} + M δe ( X u + X Tu ) g sin θ1 − Z u g cos θ1}
− ( M u + M Tu ) − {M α& s + M α + M Tα } (s 2 − M q s)
(5) θ ( s) N θ
3.2.3 =
D1 = Es 4 + Fs 3 + Gs 2 + Hs + I δ e ( s) D1
where;
E = U 1 − Z α& ( s − X u − X Tu ) − Xα X δe
F = −(U1 − Z α& )( X u + X Tu + M q ) − Z α − M α& (U 1 + Z q ) − Zu {s (U 1 − Zα& ) − Zα } Z δe
G = ( X u + X Tu ){M q (U 1 − Z α& ) + Z α + M α& (U1 + Z q )} Nθ − ( M u + M Tu ) − {M α& s + M α + M Tα } M δe
=
+ M q Z α − Z u X α + M α& g sin θ1 − ( M α + M Tα )(U1 Z q ) D1 D1
H = g sin θ1{M α + M Tu − M α& ( X u + X Tu )} (7)
+ g cos θ1{Z u M α& + ( M u + M Tu )(U1 − Zα )}
+ ( M u + M Tu ){− X α (U 1 + Z q )} + Z u X α M q Nθ = Aθ s 2 + Bθ s + Cθ
+ ( X u + X Tu ){( M α + M Tu )(U 1 + Z q ) − M q Z α } where;
I = g cos θ1{( M α + M Tu ) Z u − Zα ( M u + M Tu )}
Aθ = Z δe M α& + M δe (U 1 − Z α& )
+ g sin θ1{( M u + M Tu ) X α − ( X u + X Tu )( M α + M Tu )}
Bθ = X δe {Z u M α& + (U 1 − Z α& )(M u + M Tu )}
N u = Au s 3 + Bu s 2 + Cu s + Du + Z δe {( M α + M Tα ) − M α& ( X u + X Tu )}
where; + M δe {− Z α − (U 1 − Z α& )( X u + X Tu )}
Au = X δe (U1 − Z α& )
Cθ = X δe {( M α + M Tu ) Z u − Z α ( M u + M Tu )}
Bu = − X δe {(U 1 − Zα& ) M q + Zα − M α& (U1 + Z q )} + Z δe X α
Cu = X δe {M q Z α + M α& g sin θ1 − ( M α M Tα )(U1 + Z q )}
+ Z δe {−( M α + M Tu )( X u + X Tu ) + X α ( M u + M Tu )}
+ Z δe {M α& g cos θ1 − X α M q } + M δe { X α (U1 + Z q ) + M δe {Z α ( X u + X Tu ) − X α Z u }
− (U 1 − Zα& ) g cos θ1}
Du = X δe ( M α + M Tα ) g sin θ1 − Z δe M α g cos θ1M δe ( Z α g cos θ1 ) From these equations, the following transfer functions
can be obtained:
− X α g sin θ1

α ( s) Nα
3.2.2 = (8)
δ e ( s ) D1

( s − X u − X Tu ) X δe g cosθ1 (9)
− Zu Z δe {−( Z q + U1 ) s + g sin θ1}
Nα − ( M u + M Tu ) M δe ( s 2 − M q s)
= (6)
D1 D1
(10)
 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modeling & Simulation, Istanbul, Turkey, May 27-29, 2007 110

4 Frequency Domain Analysis It can be seen from the Bode plots, the longitudinal flight
Following bode plots were drawn by using Matlab to is obviously imposed in phugoind mode owning to a
investigate aircraft longitudinal stability in depth as given elevator deflection as anticipated from the natural
discussed in ref. [6]. freqencies and damping ratios of the aircraft.

5 Transient Response of the Aircraft

In this section, the open loop time domain responses to
an elevator deflection are plotted.
It is now necessary to define the positive deflection of
the elevator. Down elevator (stick forward) is defined as
“positive elevator” by NACA convention [7]. In the
simulation elevator deflection was held 5 deg between
100th and 105th second.
δe deflection
6

u (s)
Fig.8 Bode Plot of
δ e (s)
4

u (s) δe (deg)
3

Fig.8 indicates that the amplitude of the responce

δ e (s) 2

is very small at the natural frequency of the short period 1

oscilation. 0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
time (s)

Fig.11 Elevator Deflection

u versus δe
80

60

40

20
u (m/s)

-20

-40

Fig.9 Bode Plot of α ( s) -60

δ e ( s)
-80
Fig.9 demonstrates that the earlier statement that the 0 100 200 300 400 500
time (s)
600 700 800 900 1000

phugoid oscillation takes place at almost constant angle Fig.12 Time response u vs. t
of attack.
The short- period mode primarily consists of variations
in α and θ with very little change in the forward
velocity[7,8]. As seen in Fig. 12, the short-period
influence on u can not seen obviously, on the contrary
the short-period influence on α and θ is noticeable in
Figs. 14,16.

The phugoid mode oscillition primarily consist of

variations of θ and u with almost a constant α [7,8]. In
accordance with this, in the Fig.12, phugoid mode
oscilition is dominant.
Fig.10 Bode Plot of θ ( s )
δ e (s)
 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control, Modeling & Simulation, Istanbul, Turkey, May 27-29, 2007 111

α versus δe θ versus δe
2
1

1
0

0
-1

-1
-2
α (deg)

θ (deg)
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
-5
-5
-6
-6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
time (s) time (s)

Fig.13 Time response α vs. t Fig.16 Short-period mode influence on θ

Short-period oscillation can be seen more clearly in

Fig.14.
4 Conclusion
α versus δe
In this study, the longitudinal stability derivatives of a
1 transport aircraft have been calculated by modeling the
aircraft configuration and a flight condition at Advanced
0
Aircraft Analysis (AAA) program. A longitudinal
-1 motion of aircraft is investigated and the transfer
functions of the linearized equations have been obtained.
α (deg)

-2
The phugoid and short periods modes and frequency and
-3
transient-responses were analysed respectively, which
show that there are the low damping and the long lasting
-4
oscillations in the longitudinal flight. For this reason, the
-5
flight dynamics of the aircraft needs automatic control
systems design.
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time (s)
References:
Fig.14 Short-period mode influence on α
[1] Advanced Aircraft Analysis Version 2.5, User’s
Manual, DAR Corporation.
θ versus δe
[2] Roskam, J., Airplane Flight Dynamics and
2 Automatic Flight Controls, Part I and II, DAR
1
Corporation, 2001.
[3] Lan, C. E. and Roskam, J., Airplane Aerodynamics
0
and Performance, Roskam Aviation and
-1 Engineering, 1980.
[4] Roskam J. , Airplane Design, Parts I-VIII, DAR
θ (deg)

-2
Corporation, 1989.
-3 [5] Yechout, T.R., Morris S.L., Bossert D.E. and
-4
Hallgren W.F., Introduction to aircraft flight mechanics:
performance, static stability, dynamic stability, and
-5
classical feedback control, AIAA, 2003
-6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
[6] Ogata, K., Modern Control Engineering, Prentice
time (s) Kall, Fourth Edition, 2002.
Fig.15 Time response vs. t [7]Blakelock, J.H., Automatic Control of Aircraft and
Missiles, Wiley, 1991.
Short-period oscillation can be seen more clearly in [8 ] Turkoglu, K. and Jararov, E. M., Application of H
Figure 16. inf. Lool Shaping Robust Control System Design on
Longitudinal Dynamics of Hezarfen UAV with
Classical PI(D) and Pole Placement Methods: A
Comparison Analysis – (S/T), WSEAS Transactions
on Systems, Issue 1,Vol 6,2007,pp.206-213.

View publication stats