Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215

Derivation of perturbed equations of motion of aircraft

S. Pradeep*
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

Abstract

Flight dynamics courses are exciting except for the part where instructors derive long and complicated
equations for seemingly endless time. Most students are left bewildered at the dull algebra. A refreshing
approach to present the derivation of the equations of motion of aircraft is exempli"ed in this paper. The
method is based on the "nding that the students appreciate the algebra better if they are enlightened about
the logic behind it. The derivation of the perturbed equations is unfolded through the theory of stability in
the "rst approximation. Although the concept is as old as the equations themselves, it is amazing that it is not
explained in this manner in books. The author's teaching experience has shown that this approach has led to
substantial amelioration of the course. Students who are learning the course for the "rst time "nd the
derivation of equations as gripping as the remaining portion when taught in this fashion.  1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper has its genesis in an incident that occurred years ago, when the author was attending
his "rst course in atmospheric #ight dynamics as a sophomore. The teacher was one of the "nest
and he brilliantly expounded the nuances of static stability, making such an intricate subject seem
so lucid. It was when he embarked on the derivation of the equations of motion of aircraft that
lectures which were so vivacious until then abruptly seemed to lose their charm. Equations which
began at the left end of the board lingered on until the right extreme and then continued to the next
line. Gradually, the students began losing interest and the class fell into disarray. At last, one of the
students, re#ecting the ba%ement of the class, stood up and asked, &&Sir, what are we doing all this
for?''
Everyone who has been through these messy equations knows how dreary they are. As a fresh
faculty member, the author followed the same trail and soon discovered the lack of interest induced
in the class during the equation derivation. Considerable introspection, learning and experimenta-
tion with students over a period of time led to the evolution of a new method of presenting the

* Fax: 91-080-3341683; e-mail: spradeep@aero.iisc.ernet.in

1369-8869/98/$ } see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 36 9- 88 6 9 (9 8 )0 0 01 7 - 2
206 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215

derivation. Spelling out the raison d'e( tre behind the lengthy algebraic manipulations proved to be
the missing link: it dispels the monotony and restores the sprightliness in the classroom. This makes
the students attentive because they are left with an overall appreciation; comprehension of the
individual steps then follow e!ortlessly.
The derivation of the small perturbation equations rests on the solid foundations of stability
theory. Most texts do not mention this on the presumption that the students are already conscious
of the background. This is seldom true. If the proper backdrop from stability theory is elucidated
before the equations are derived, it will create a world of di!erence.
In a nutshell, the presentation is along the following lines. Most nonlinear equations cannot be
solved in closed form. If special solutions of the equations are known, then the stability of these
solutions can be resolved from Liapunov's theory. In aircraft dynamics, special solutions such as
straight and level #ight and steady turns are known. To examine the stability of the known
solution, it is subtracted from the general equations of motion to obtain the equations of perturbed
motion. The perturbed equations of motion are linearized. The theory of stability in the "rst
approximation enables one to "gure out the stability of nonlinear equations from the properties of
the linearized equations, provided the nonlinearities are su$ciently small. It states that if the zero
solution of the linearized system is asymptotically stable, then the corresponding solution of the
nonlinear equation is also asymptotically stable and, if at least one solution of the linearized system
is unstable, then the corresponding solution of the nonlinear equation is also unstable. This
theorem simpli"es the issue enormously because linear equations are extremely easy to work with.
The zero solution of a linear system is asymptotically stable if all its eigenvalues are negative and
the zero solution is unstable if at least one of its eigenvalues is positive.
This innovation in delivery is the subject of this paper. The relevant stability theory is "rst
explained in greater detail. The handling of the derivation of equations is described subsequently.

2. Theory of stability in the 5rst approximation

Consider a physical system governed by the following "rst-order vector di!erential equation:
y " g (y). (1)
GHI GHI
; ;
L  L 
Let y"g(t) be a particular solution of Eq. (1), i.e.,
gR " g (g). (2)
GHI GHI

L; L;
It is desired to study the stability of the solution y(t)"g(t). De"ne the new variable
x(t)"y(t)!g(t). (3)
x(t)"0 corresponds to the particular solution y(t)"g(t). This is called the equilibrium solution
or the unperturbed state. Di!erentiating Eq. (3) leads to
x (t)"y (t)!gR (t).
 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215 207

Using Eq. (1), the above equation becomes

x (t)"g(y , 2 , y )!g(g , 2 , g ),
 L  L
x " g(x #g , 2 , x #g )!g(g , 2 , g ) ,
  L
GFFFFFFFHFFFFFFFI L  L
since g(t) is a known function of t
f (x),
x " f (x). (4)
GHI GHI

L; L;
Eq. (4) is called the equation of perturbed motion. If it takes the form
x "Ax#h(x)
after the series expansion of f, then
x "Ax (5)
is called the equation in the "rst approximation.
If the nonlinearities are su$ciently small, then the properties of the linear equation (5) translate
directly to the properties of the nonlinear equation (4). The following theorem shows the conditions
under which this is true.

Theorem (Cesari [1]). (1) If A is a constant matrix whose eigenvalues have negative real parts, and if
#h(x)#"o(#x#),
then every solution x(t) of the equation
x "Ax#h(x) (6)
with #x(0)# su.ciently small exists, and the solution x"0 is asymptotically stable.
(2) ;nder the same conditions for h(x), the solution x"0 of Eq. (6) is unstable if at least one of the
eigenvalues of A has its real part positive.

In other words, if the norm of the nonlinear terms decreases faster than the norm of the state
vector as the state vector approaches in"nity, then the asymptotic stability/instability of the
nonlinear equations is identical with all eigenvalues of the linear system matrix being negative/at
least one of them being positive. It is needless to mention that the determination of the stability of
hopelessly complex nonlinear equations through the examination of eigenvalues of a constant
coe$cient matrix, which is a trivial a!air, provides enormous simpli"cation in analysis.

3. General equations of motion of aircraft

The notation of Roskam [2] is used in this paper. Eqs. (2.55)}(2.57) of Roskam [2] constitute the
most general equations of motion of aeroplanes in free #ight:
m(;Q !<R#=Q)"!mg sin H#F V#F V ,
 2
m(<Q #;R!=P)"mg sin U cos H#F W#F W ,
 2
208 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215

m(= Q !;Q#<P)"mg cos U cos H#F #F ,

X 2X
I PQ !I RQ !I PQ#(I !I )RQ"¸ #¸ ,
VV VX VX XX WW  2
Q
I Q#(I !I )PR#I (P!R)"M #M ,
WW VV XX VX  2
I RQ !I PQ #(I !I )PQ#I QR"N #N ,
XX VX WW VV VX  2
P"UQ !WQ sin H,
Q"HQ cos U#WQ cos H sin U,
R"WQ cos H cos U!HQ sin U.
The equations are rearranged to bring one and only one derivative on the left-hand side of each
equation. The remaining terms are moved to the right-hand side:
1
;Q "<R!=Q!g sin H# (X #X ), (7)
m  2
1
<Q "=P!;R#g sin U cos H# (> #> ), (8)
m  2
1
Q ";Q!<P#g cos U cos H# (Z #Z ),
= (9)
m  2
UQ "P#Q sin U tan H#R cos U tan H, (10)
HQ "Q cos U!R sin U, (11)
WQ "(Q sin U#R cos U) sec H (12)
PQ "c QR#c PQ#c (¸ #¸ )#c (N #N ), (13)
    2   2
QQ "c PR!c (P!R)#c (M #M ), (14)
    2
QR"c PQ!c QR#c (¸ #¸ )#c (N #N ), (15)
    2   2
where c , 2 , c are constants dependent on the moments and products of inertia [3]:
 
!I (I !I ) I I I I (I !I )
c " XX XX WW ! VX , c " XX VX! VX WW VV ,
 C C  C C
I I
c " XX , c " VX ,
 C  C
I !I I
c " XX VV , c " VX ,
 I  I
WW WW
1 I !I (I !I )
c " , c " VX VV WW VV ,
 I  C
WW
I
c " VV , C"I I !I .
 C VV XX VX
 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215 209

Note that a change in notation has been made:

E X has been used in the place of F V .
 
E > has been used in the place of F W .
 
E Z has been used in the place of F .
 X
E X has been used in the place of F .
2 2V
E > has been used in the place of F .
2 2W
E Z has been used in the place of F .
2 2X
These are arrived at after making the following assumptions:
1. The aeroplane is a rigid body.
2. The earth is "xed inertially.
3. The earth is #at.
4. The mass of the aeroplane remains constant over the small periods of time typically used in
dynamic stability calculations.
5. All rotors have constant angular momentum, w.r.t. an observer on the aeroplane.
6. The XZ plane is a plane of symmetry.
7. The e!ect of spinning rotors is negligible.

Eqs. (7)}(15) are rewritten below in the matrix form y "g(y):

1
i <R!=Q!g sin H#m (X#X2 ) e
i ;Q e g =P!;R#g sin U cos H#m1 (>#>2 ) g
g <Q g g ;Q!<P#g cos U cos H# 1 (Z #Z ) g
g =Q g m  2
g UQ g g g
P#Q sin U tan H#R cos U tan H
g HQ g " g Q cos U!R sin U
g (16)
g WQ g g g
Q (Q sin U#R cos U) sec H
g g
P
g c QR#c PQ#c (¸ #¸ )#c (N #N ) g
g QQ g     2   2
k h
R Q g c

PR!c

(P!R)#c (M
 
#M
2
) g
k c PQ!cQR#c (¸#¸2 )#c (N#N2 ) h
There are nine "rst order, nonlinear, coupled, constant coe$cient ordinary di!erential equations
in the nine dependent variables (;, <, =; U, H, W; P, Q, R). They cannot be solved literally in
terms of elementary algebraic functions in closed form. They may be solved numerically on a digital
computer and this is carried out extensively in the aeroplane industry.
In many instances of practical interest, the solutions are already known a priori. These are the
steady-state solutions that the aeroplane encounters during its normal #ight operations, such as the
wings level, symmetric, steady, straight line #ight. The "rst step in #ight dynamics analysis is
usually the stability of the open-loop plant and the question is to determine whether the aeroplane
210 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215

will sustain its steady-state #ight when subject to small disturbances from the surrounding air. One
is thus led to the qualitative behaviour of solutions, without knowing the solution itself.

4. Steady-state equations of motion

During most part of #ight, aeroplanes #y in symmetric, wings level, steady straight line #ight.
Apart from this, aeroplanes also perform steady manoeuvres such as the steady symmetrical pull
up or push over and the steady level turn. These steady-state solutions may be generalized into the
most general steady state given by the condition that all velocities, both linear and angular, remain
constant w.r.t. the body axes:

dV
du
!"0 and "0,
dt dt
where the superscript &b' on the left indicates di!erentiation with respect to the body "xed frame.
This implies that
;Q "<Q "= Q "0,
  
PQ "QQ "RQ "0,
  
or (;, <, =; P, Q, R) are constant in the steady state. Note that steady-state rolling, pitching and
yawing are possible as a trim condition, and are nonzero in general.
As aeroplanes #y in these steady states, these #ight conditions must be special solutions to
Eq. (16). The most general steady-state equations, written below, are obtained by substituting
V "0 and uR "0 in Eq. (16). Attach the subscript &0' to each of the variables to indicate that the
!
steady state is being referred to.
1
< R != Q !g sin H # (X #X  ) e
     m  2
i 1
i ;Q  e g = P !; R #g sin U cos H # (> #>  )
      m  2
g
g < gQ
g ; Q !< P #g cos U cos H # (Z #Z  )
1 g
Q        2
g =g
g
m g
g UQ  g P #Q sin U tan H #R cos U tan H
       g
g H g "
Q g Q cos U !R sin U
   
g WQ  g g (Q sin U #R cos U ) sec H
g
    
g PQ  g g c Q R #c P Q #c (¸ #¸  )#c (N #N  ) g
        2   2
g QQ  g c P R !c (P!R )#c (M #M  ) g
k RQ  h g         2
k c P Q !c Q R #c (¸ #¸  )#c (N #N  )
        2   2h
The most general steady state is seldom used in analysis. Most often, it is required to study the
stability of airplanes in straight and level symmetric #ight. For this condition, many of the steady
state variables become zero.
 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215 211

; "constant

< "0 (symmetric #ight}zero sideslip)

= "0 (in stability axes, the X axis points into the wind during steady state)

U "0 (wings level)

H "constant,

W "0 (by choice of inertial axes),

P "Q "R "0 (straight line #ight),
  
;Q "<Q "= Q "0,
  
PQ "QQ "RQ "0.
  
Incorporating the de"nition of the steady state as above, the steady-state equations reduce to
1
!g sin H # (X #X  )
e
i  m  2
1
i ;Q  e i 0e g (> #>  )
m  2
g
g g Q g 0g
<
Q
g 1 g
g cos H # (Z #Z  )
g g
= g 0g  m  2
g)
g UQ  g g 0g g (17)
0
g HQ  g " g 0 g " g 0
g
g WQ  g g 0g g 0
g
g g
P Q g 0g g c (¸ #¸ )#c (N #N ) g
g g
Q Q g 0g    2  
 2  

k RQ  h k 0h g c (M #M )
  2 
g 

k c (¸ #¸ )#c (N #N ) h
   2  
 2  
This equation corresponds to Eq. (2).

5. Perturbed equations of motion

If the aeroplane, initially in steady #ight, is disturbed, say by a gust, then in the course of time, all
motion variables will di!er from their steady-state values. Analysis can be simpli"ed if each motion
variable is considered as the sum of a steady-state component (written, as before, with the su$x &0')
and a perturbed component (written in the lower-case letter). Similar to the motion variables, the
forces and moments can also be written as the sum of steady and perturbed components:
;"; #u, P"P #p"p, U"U #
"
,
  
<"< #v"v, Q"Q #q"q, H"H #h"h,
  
="= #w"w, R"R #r"r, W"W #t"t,
  
X "X #x , X "X #x , ¸ "¸ #l , ¸ "¸ #l ,
   2 2 2    2 2 2
> "> #y , > "> #y , M "M #m , M "M #m ,
   2 2 2    2 2 2
Z "Z #z , Z "Z #z , N "N #n , N "N #n ,
   2 2 2    2 2 2
212 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215

In matrix form, these equations correspond to

y(t)"g(t)#x(t),
where
y"(; < = U H W P Q R)2
"(; #u < #v = #w U #
H #h W #t P #p Q #q R #r)2,
        
g"(; < = U H W P Q R )2,
        
x"(u v w
h t p q r)2.
The equation of perturbed motion may be obtained by substituting the above de"nitions in
Eq. (16), incorporating the conditions for the steady-state solution and subtracting the steady-state
solution (17) from it. The algebra for "rst equation is shown below:
1
yR "<R!=Q!g sin H# (X #X )
 m  2
1
"(< #v)(R #r)!(= #w)(Q #q)!g sin (H #h)# (X #x #X #x )
     m   2 2
1
"(0#v)(0#r)!(0#w)(0#q)!g sin (H #h)# (X #x #X #x )
 m   2 2
1 1
"vr!wq!g sin (H #h)# (X #X  )# (x #x ),
 m  2 m  2
1
gR "!g sin H # (X #X  ),
  m  2
xR "yR !gR
  
1
"vr!wq!g[sin (H #h)!sin (H )]# (x #x ).
  m  2
Similarly,
1
xR "wp!ur!; r#g sin
cos (H #h)# (y #y ),
   m  2
1
xR "; q#uq!vp#g[cos
cos (H #h)!cos H ]# (z #z ),
    m  2
xR "p#q sin
tan (H #h)#r cos
tan (H #h),
  
xR "q cos
!r sin
,

xR "(q sin
#r cos
)sec (H #h),
 
xR "c qr#c pq#c (l #l )#c (n #n ),
     2   2
 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215 213

xR "c pr!c (p!r)#c (m #m ),

     2
xR "c pq!c qr#c (l #l )#c (n #n ).
     2   2
The equations are written below in matrix form
1
vr!wq!g[sin (H #h)!sin H ]# (x #x )
  m  2 e
i 1
i xR e i uR e g wp!ur!; r#g sin
cos (H #h)# (y #y )
  m  2 g
g xR g g vR g g uq!<p#; q#g [cos
cos (H #h)!cos H ]# (z #z )
1 g
g xR g g wR g    m  2
g xR g g
Q g g p#q sin
tan (H #h)#r cos
tan (H #h) (18)g
 
g xR g " g hQ g " g q cos
!r sin
g
g xR g gt gQ g (q sin
#r cos
) sec (H #h)

g
g xR g g pR g g c qr#c pq#c (l #l )#c (n #n ) g
    2   2
g xR g g qR g c pr!c (p!r)#c (m #m ) g
k xR h k rR h g     2
c pq!c qr#c (l #l )#c (n #n )
k     2   2 h
This corresponds to Eq. (4).

6. Linearization of the perturbed equations in the motion variables

The perturbed equations have now been obtained and the solution x"0 (i.e., u"
v"w"p"q"r"0) of the perturbed equation corresponds to the steady-state solution
y(t)"g(t), (i.e., U"; , <"< , ="= , P"P , Q"Q , and R"R ). Apart from this, no
     
simpli"cation has been achieved because the equation x "f(x) is as formidable as the original
equation y "g(y).
The methods of simpli"cation must therefore be sought by making use of the fact that the
perturbed quantities, at least to begin with are one order of magnitude smaller than the steady-state
quantities. The phrase at least to begin with was used because if the system is unstable in ;, then
the perturbed variable u will eventually become extremely large and may not satisfy the aforestated
condition. Nevertheless, immediately after the disturbance, u/; 1.

If the equations are linearized by expanding the trigonometric terms and neglecting higher-order
terms in the resulting equations, then the theorem of stability in the "rst approximation could be
used, provided the nonlinearity satis"es #h(x)#"o(#x)#). The condition on the nonlinearity is
di$cult to verify because of the large order of the system. However, some physics could be used to
check that this condition is veri"ed in practice. The condition on the norms implies that as #x# goes
to zero, #h(x)# goes to zero at a faster rate.
The trigonometric terms, after expansion and retention of the "rst-order terms in the dependent
variables are
sin (H #h)+sin H #h cos H ,
  
214 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215

sin
cos (H #h)+
cos H ,
 
cos
cos (H #h)+cos H !h sin H ,
  
sec (H #h)+sec H (1#h tan H ),
  
sin
sec (H #h)+
sec H ,
 
cos
sec (H #h)+sec H #h sec H tan H ,
   
tan (H #h)+tan H #h (1#tanH ),
  
sin
tan (H #h)+
tan H ,
 
cos
tan (H #h)+tan H #h(1#tan H ).
  
Incorporating these into Eq. (18) and neglecting higher-order terms leads to the equations
linearized in the motion variables. The aerodynamic and the propulsive terms are not expanded in
this paper. This may be found in [2}5].

1
!gh cos H # (x #x ) e
 m  2
i 1
i uR e g !; r#g
cos H # (y #y )
  m  2
g
g gv R
g 1
; q!gh sin H # (z #z )
g
g wR g   m  2
g g
g
Q g p#r tan H
 g.
g hQ g " g q
g tQ g g r sec H
g

g gpR
g c (l #l )#c (n #n ) g
  2   2
g qR g c (m #m ) g
k rR h g   2
k c (l #l )#c (n #n )
  2   2 h
This completes the derivation of the linearized perturbation equations.

7. Conclusion

The material presented in this paper constitutes an alternate way to present the derivation of
equations of motion of aircraft. The lengthy equations of aircraft are notorious and most students
lose interest in the subject when the instructor gets to this stage. By explaining the mathematical
theory behind the agonizing details of the equations, much of the accompanying disheartenment is
removed from the minds of novices. In the author's opinion, the theory of stability in the "rst
approximation should be explained after the general nonlinear equations are derived. Before
resuming the derivation, it is expedient to illustrate the theory through a simple example. The
author usually uses the theorem to prove the instability of the inverted pendulum. It can be
 S. Pradeep / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 205}215 215

completed quickly and provides insights into the application of the theory. When the nonlinear
aircraft equations are taken up for perturbation studies with this backgound, the students "nd this
portion as enjoyable as the rest.

References

[1] Cesari L. Asymptotic behaviour and stability problems in ordinary di!erential equations, 2nd ed., Berlin: Springer,
1963: 92}3.
[2] Roskam J. Airplane #ight dynamics and automatic #ight controls. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation,
Kansas, vol. I, 1979.
[3] Stevens, BL, Lewis, FL. Aircraft control and simulation, New York, Wiley: 1992.
[4] Etkin B, Reid LD. Dynamics of #ight: stability and control, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1996.
[5] McRuer D, Ashkenas I, Graham D. Aircraft dynamics and automatic control. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1973.