Ss 7 GRP 4 Fstabilitycontrol

Department of Aeronautical Engineering
University of Bristol

UB2008F Colossus

Sub-Section 7:
Stability & Control

Authors:
Mike Dennison
Martin Bracewell
Becky Hutchinson

Three-View
General Details
Model Description High payload, long
range freighter
aircraft
List Price Std/HO (2007
$USm)
287.95
Launch 2015
Entry into Service 2020
Accommodtn (space ltd) 6 x PAG, 38 x LD3,
33 x PMC118
Accommodtn (payld ltd) 18 x PAG, 4 x LD3,
33 x PMC118
Design Criteria
Max Operating V
mo
/M
mo
510 KTAS / 0.89M
Dive V
D
/M
D
528 KTAS / 0.92M
Certified Max Alt. 12530m / 41100ft
Landing Gear V
LO
/V
LE
Max. Flaps V
FE
205 KCAS
External Geometry
Wing (Canard)
Overall Length 79.62m/261.2ft
Overall Height 22.47m/73.72ft
Wingspan 75.0m/246.1ft
(25.5m/83.7ft)
Wing Area (gross) 680m
2
/ 7319ft
2
Wing Area (ESDU) 596m
2
/ 6410ft
2
Canard Area (gross) 111m
2
/ 1195ft
2
Canard Area (ESDU) 71.1m
2
/ 765.3ft
2
Wing/Canard ARatio 9.92 / 5.87
1/4 Chd Swp 33.0 deg (35.0 deg)
t/c - Root / Kink 1 /
Kink 2 / Tip
0.14/ / /0.105
Cabin Geometry
Max no ULDs 14 x PGA or
33 x AMA or
33 x PMC or
33 x AAK
Cabin length
Top:
Upper Cargo:
Lower Cargo:
9.46m / 31.04ft
49.97m / 157.38ft
47.53m / 155.94ft
Cabin volume
Top:
Upper Cargo:
Lower Cargo:
78.30m / 2765ft
3 3
1026.2m / 36239.9ft
3 3
375.4m
3
/ 13257.1ft
3
Max cabin width
Top:
Upper Cargo:
Lower Cargo:
5.77m / 18.9ft
6.82m / 22.4ft
6.8m / 22.3ft
Cabin floor width
Top:
Upper Cargo:
Lower Cargo:
5.77m / 18.9ft
6.82m / 22.4ft
5.18m / 17.0ft
External
Fuselage width:
Fuselage height:
7.11m / 23.33ft
8.51m / 27.92ft
Total cargo volume 909.3m
3
/ 32112ft
3
Payload net density 58.6kg/m
2
/ 12 lb/ft
2
Colossus
Fuselage Cross-Section
Deck Layouts
Cargo Doors/Access
Cargo door
size
(Wdth x hght)
upper cargo: 3.4 x 3.18m
11.2 x 10.43 ft
lower fwd: 2.64 x 1.68m
8.66 x 5.51ft
lower aft: 2.64 x 1.68m
8.66 x 5.51ft
Systems
Engine Rolls Royce Trent 900
Or GP7000 Derivative
APU NASA/Boeing Concept 440kW
Solid oxide fuel cell
Avionics Proprietary
Payload-Range Diagram
Payload Range
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Range (nm)
P
a
y
l
o
a
d

(
x
1
0
0
0
k
g
)
Weights & Loadings
Maximum Ramp Weight 557480kg / 1229012lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 557010kg / 1227976lb
Maximum Landing Weight 473460kg / 1043783lb
Max Zero-Fuel Weight 373960kg / 824427lb
Operationl Weight Empty 198960kg / 438624lb
Maximum Payload 175000kg / 385802lb
Maximum Usable Fuel: 310336L / 81991USG
** 6.75 lb per USG 251040kg / 553439lb
Payload at max. fuel 107480kg / 236949lb
Wing Loading (MTOW) 711.1kg/m
2
145.7lb/ft
2
Thrust(max SLS)to Weight
(MTOW)
2.49 N/kg
0.254 lbf/lb
Empty Weight/mx payload 1.14
OWE/MTOW Fraction 0.36
(MZFW-OWE)/MTOW Fractn 0.31
Max Fuel Fraction 0.45
Performance
Engine Rating 356kN / 80000lbf
Takeoff Rating max 354kN / 79512lbf
Flat Rating ISA+15 at T/O
Airfield Performance (MTOW/MLW)
BFL, ISA+15C, SL 2745m / 9006ft
LFL, ISA, SL 2060m / 6759ft
Approach Speed (MLW) 155kts / 0.24M
En route Perf: Climb (AEO, ISA, MTOW br.)
Time to Climb to FL 350 27 min
Time to Climb to ICA 27 min
Initial Cruise Altitude 10670m / 35000ft
En route Performance: Cruise
Long Range Cruise 487kts / 0.85M
High Speed Cruise 510kts / 0.89M
Payload-Range
Reserves Description FAR 121, 200nm range
Design range for given
payload [@ LRC]
5500nm
Block Performance (given payload, ISA, s.a.)
Assumptions: Max payload, LRC speed
3000 nm Block fuel 82662kg/182147 lb
Block time 6.58h
TOGW 477730kg/1053197 lb
Max Range Block fuel 158308kg/349000 lb
Block time 11.71h
TOGW 557010kg/1227976 lb
Systems Description
ATA-21 Air Conditioning
ECS Overview Fully automated
3 ECS packages
4 zones
2 Ram air scoops
ECS Location Belly Fairing
Cockpit / Cabin Pressure
Control
Automatic and manual
Cockpit / Cabin
Temperature Control
Automatic and manual
No. Cabin Control Zones 3
Press. System Overview Digital controller
Fresh Air Ratio 4 recirc fans
Overpress. Valve Diff. 9.1 psi
Cabin Alt. at Max Alt. 8000 ft
Cooling Cycle Overview 3 ECS packs
4-wheel cyc. Machine
Dual heat exchanger
Water separator
ATA 22 - Auto Flight
Auto Flight
Cntrl Descr.
Digital FCCs
Flight Director Descr. 1 FD per FCC
Yaw Damper Descr. Incorporated into
stability
Auto Pitch Trim Descr. Trim via CG
management (trim
fuel tanks)
ATA 23 - Communications
Comms System Overview VHF radios, HF data
radios, multimode
receiver (MMR), ACPs
ACARS Standard
SELCAL Standard
ATA 24 - Electrical Power
Main Power Type 270V DC
Power Distr. Frequency Variable
Number of Main Genrtors 8
Main Generator Power 200kVA
Aux. Generator & Power
(APU)
200kVA
Emergency Power Source 4 x PMG (100kVA)
Main System DC voltage 270V, 28V
Battery Type & Power Lithium Ion
Number of Batteries 16
Extrnl AC or DC Hook-Up DC
Main Distrbtn System Integrated modular
avionics, full duplex
ATA 25 Cargo Compartments
Cargo Handling System
Overview
Rheinmetall Power Drive
Unit System, central
maintenance computer
Internal Loading
Apparatus
Ball bearings and
powered rollers
Provisions for
loading/unloading
Large cargo doors
Strengthening around
doors
Provisions for unusual
freight
None
Floor loading 2823 kg/m / 1897lb/ft
Cargo compartment alt 8000 ft
ATA 27 - Flight Controls
Flight Control System Electrical
Aileron Actuation Mthod Two Section, 2 Dual
power source actuators
per section
Description of Rudder Two Section
Rudder Actuation Method 2 Dual power source
actuators per section
Fixed / Var. Incd. Tail Fixed
Elevator Actuation Mthd 2 Dual power source
actuators per section
Stall Protection Devices Envelope protection in
FCS
Flap System Overview Three section single
slotted fowler main
wing
Flap (Slat) Deflection -
Takeoff (Highest)
Main Wing 20 (40)
Canard 20 (35)
Flap (Slat) Deflection -
Landing Configuration
Main Wing 40 (35)
Canard 40 (40)
HI Lift LE Device 3 panel kruger flaps on
main wing, 1 panel slat
on canard
HI Lift LE Dev. Actuatn Electrical
HI Lift TE Device Single slotted
HI Lift TE Dev. Actuatn Electrical
Total Number of Roll
Splers / Flight Splers /
Ground Splers / Total
/ / / 6
Spoiler Actuation Electrical
ATA 28 - Fuel System
Tot. Usable Fuel Capac. 287290L / 75894 USG
Tank Capacity (Wing) 202420L / 53474 USG
Tank Capacity (centre) 48620L / 12844 USG
Tank Capacity (canard) 36250L / 9576 USG
Tank Cap. (Aux.+Trim) 14110L / 3727 USG
Fuel System Overview Automated fuel
distribution
Loctn Aux. Fuel Tanks Outer wing
Fuel Pump Overview Automatically pumped
to change weight
distribution
Cross-Feed Capability yes
Single Pt Refuel Capab. yes
Gravity Refuel Capablty yes
Location of Fuel Filler
Ports
below wing leading
edge between engines
ATA 29 - Hydraulic Power
Hydrlic System Overview N/A no hydraulics
Hydraulic Bay Location N/A
Number of Main Systems N/A
Hydraulic Fluid Type(s) N/A
Nominal Working Pressure N/A
Hydraulic Pumps N/A
Hydraulically Actuated
Items
N/A
ATA 30 - Ice and Rain Protection
Anti-Ice System Overview Electrical, bleed air
for nacelles
Wing Electric heat mats
Canard Electric heat mats
V-tail Electric heat mats
Nacelle Intake 5
th
stage bleed air
Probes & Sensors Electric
Windshield Electrically heated
2 wipers for rain
Rain repellent liquid
ATA 32 - Landing Gear
Landing Gear Actuation EMA
Emerg. Extension
Procedure
Manual release, gravity
extension
Main Landing Gear Type Cantilever
Location of MLG Fuselage and Fairing
MLG Strut Type Oleo-Pneumatic
Tire Size - MLG 1.27 m x 0.51 m
50 in x 20 in
Tire Pressure - MLG 14.32 bar / 208 psi
MLG Braking System Carbon brakes, anti
skid system, EHA
Nose Landing Gear Type Cantilever
Spatial Direction for
Retraction of NLG
Forwards
NLG Strut Type Oleo-Pneumatic
Tire Size - NLG 1.27 m x 0.51 m
50 in x 20 in
Tire Pressure - NLG 13.65 bar / 198 psi
NLG Steering Overview EHA, controlled by RDCs
ATA 34 - Navigation
No. of ADS Computers 2
Number of AHRS 2 GNADIRS
STD / OPT GPS STD
EFIS Displays Overview Pilot: 4 LAD (15.3in
Number of IRS 3 STD
STD / OPT EGPWS STD
STD / OPT TCAS STD
No. Radio Altimeters 2 STD
STD / OPT HUD STD
STD/OPT CatIIIa Appr. STD
STD/OPT CatIIIb Appr. STD
STD / OPT Autoland STD
GPWS/Wind Shear Detec STD
Digital Weather Radar STD
STD / OPT EVS STD
STD / OPT MLS STD
Number of VHF Radios 3 STD
No. of HF Transceivers 2 STD
No. of ADF Receivers 2 STD
No. DME Transceivers 2 STD
STD/OPT Mode S Trnspn 2 STD
STD / OPT Coupled VNAV STD
RNP Capability 0.3 or better
Overview of FMS System Integrated terrain
guidance and on ground
navigation
ATA 35 - Oxygen
Oxygen System Overview Crew O2 from cylinder,
PAX chemical oxygen
generators
ATA 36 - Pneumatics
Pneumatic System
Overview
N/A
Location of Bleed Ports
and Capacity
N/A
Pneumatic Source & Use N/A
Bleed Leak Detection N/A
ATA 39 - Electrical / Electronic Panels
Loc. of Major Elec.
Components & System
Main Cabin
Main Display Panels LCD
Main Display Size (HxW) 15.3in diagonal 16:9
GE Aviation LAD
No. Main Display Panels 4 for Pilot, 3 for
Assist
Avionics Suite Designtn TBD
Avionics Suite
Manufacturer
Proprietary
Avionics Rack Location 1 Rack Rear of Cockpit
1 Rack Fore of Wingbox
ATA 49 - Auxiliary Power Unit
Std / Opt APU STD solid oxide fuel
cell
APU Designation Hybrid 440kW SOFC
APU Manufacturer NASA/Boeing
APU Location Tailcone
APU Reqrd for Dispatch Yes
APU Operation & Control FADEC
APU Fire Extinguishing Halon
APU Max Start. Altitude 41000 ft
APU Max Oper. Altitude 41000 ft
ATA 52 Cargo Doors
Access for
loading/unloading
Upper and main deck
doors on port side
Lower deck fore and
aft doors on
starboard side
All doors open
outwards
ATA 53, 54, 55 & 57 - Structure
Strctrl Prss. Diffrntl 8.32 psi
Struc. Life cycle/hrs 120000 hrs
Structure Overview Mostly composite
structure
Structure & Material
Fuselage Frame/Floor
CFRP / carbon
sandwich
Struct. & Material -
Nacelle / Pylon
CFRP sandwich /
Titanium
Canard
CFRP wingbox, GLARE
leading edge
Elevator
CFRP sandwich
Vertical tail
Carbon sandwich,
GLARE leading edge
Wing Tip Geometry Type Winglet, CFRP
Aileron
CFRP sandwich
Struct. & Material - HI
Lift LE Device
GLARE
Lift TE Device
CFRP
Speed Brakes
CFRP
ATA 71-80 - Engine
Engine Manufacturer Rolls-Royce
Engine Designation Trent
Turbofan No. of Stages
Fan/Boost/Compaxial +
Compcent//HPT/IPT/LPT
1/8/6/1/1/5
Number of Engines 4
Mounting Point wings
Max. Takeoff Thrust each
(Std/HO)
356kN/80,000lbf
Flat Rating Temp ISA+15
o
Thrust Reversr Overviw Inboard engines only
Bypass Ratio 7.4
Overall Pressure Ratio 39
TSFC at M0.80, FL 350 0.054kg/N/hr,
0.53lb/lbf/hr
FADEC or DEEC FADEC
ETOPS Capability N/A
External Noise, MTOW
(ICAO Annex 16)
Takeoff / Stage 3 Limit 92.4 EPNdB / 106 EPNdB
Sideline / Stage 3 Lim. 89.7 EPNdB / 103 EPNdB
Approach / Stage 3 Lim. 102 EPNdB / 105 EPNdB
Cumltv Margn to Stg 3 29.9 EPNdB
Emissions (ICAO LTO
cycle)
NOx 53.5g/kN
CO 40.9g/kN
Unburnt Hydrocarbons 4.8g/kN
Technical Document 07: Stability & Control

Group 4F i
List of Abbreviations
AC Aerodynamic Centre
ARINC Aeronautical Radios, Incorporated
ATA Air Transport Association
CCS Common Core System
CG Centre of Gravity
CS Certification Specification
EFCS Electronic Flight Control System
EHA Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator
ELAC Elevator/Aileron Control
EMA Electro-Mechanical Actuator
FBW Fly-By-Wire
FCS Flight Control System
FCU Flight Control Unit
FMC Fuel Management Computer
FMGEC Flight Management Guidance and Envelope Computer
LVDT Linear Variable Differential Transducer
MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord
MCDU Multi-function Display and Control Unit
MTOW Maximum Take-off Weight
MZFW Maximum Zero Fuel Weight
nm Nautical Mile
OEI One Engine Inoperative
RAC Rudder/Aileron Control
SAG Stability Augmentation
SEC Spoiler/Elevator Control
T/O Take-off
WFP Wing-Fuselage-Pods

List of Superscripts
A Airborne at V
MC
A
G Grounded at V
MC
G
V Vertical Tail Plane
WFP Wing-Fuselage-Pods

Group 4F ii
List of Notations
Angle of attack
Local angle of attack
Sideslip angle
CW
Sideslip angle induced by cross-wind
Control surface deflection
r
Rudder deflection
r max
Maximum allowable rudder deflection in normal conditions
r CW
Maximum allowable rudder deflection to counteract cross-wind
Surface c Mean chord of control surface
C
H
Coefficient of hinge moment
C
H 0
Coefficient of hinge moment at zero incidence and control surface deflection
C
L
Coefficient of lift
C
L T/o
Coefficient of lift at take-off
C
M
Coefficient of pitching moment
C
N
Coefficient of yawing moment
C
T

Coefficient of thrust
C
Y
Coefficient of side force
H Hinge moment
K
r
8
r
=
l
a
Mean aerodynamic chord of wing
l
V
Vertical tail arm
q Dynamic pressure
S
c
Canard reference area
S
W
Wing reference area
S
Surface
Area of control surface
V
App
Approach speed
V
CW
Cross-wind speed
V
MC
Minimum control speed
V
p
Control surface volume
x
CG
Longitudinal position of the CG from the nose
x
CG AC
Longitudinal position of the CG from the wing AC
y
T
Lateral distance to outboard engine


Group 4F iii
Section Breakdown

M. Dennison: 7-1

7-2: All Sections

7-3: All Sections

7-4: All Sections

7-5: All Sections except 7-5-3-1

B. Hutchinson: 7-5-3-1

M. Bracewell: 7-6: All Sections

Group 4F iv

Contents

7-1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1

7-2 Longitudinal Stability.................................................................................................................1

7-2-1 Canard Sizing and Positioning.......................................................................................1
7-2-2 Digital Datcom Analysis................................................................................................1
7-2-3 Nose Wheel Reaction....................................................................................................2

7-3 Lateral Stability..........................................................................................................................3

7-3-1 Cross-wind Landing.......................................................................................................4
7-3-2 Directional Stability.......................................................................................................4
7-3-3 Yawing Moment on Take-off Run.................................................................................4
7-3-4 Yawing Moment and Side Force while Airborne...........................................................5
7-3-5 Final Fin Size..................................................................................................................5

7-4 Derivative Empennage Sizing.....................................................................................................6

7-4-1 Canard Sizing for Derivative..........................................................................................6
7-4-2 Fin Sizing for Derivative................................................................................................6

7-5 Primary Control Systems............................................................................................................7

7-5-1 Control Surface Sizing...................................................................................................7
7-5-2 Control Surface Hinge Moments...................................................................................7
7-5-3 Secondary Control Systems..........................................................................................8
7-5-3-1 Trim Fuel..........................................................................................................8
7-5-3-2 Flap Systems....................................................................................................8
7-5-3-3 Slat Systems.....................................................................................................8

Group 4F v
List of Tables
Table 7-1: Canard geometry and structural parameters 5
Table 7-2: Fin sizing parameters 6
Table 7-3: Fin geometry and structural parameters 9
Table 7-4: Primary control surface sizes 11
Table 7-5: Primary control surface hinge moments 11
Table 7-6: EFCS control laws 13

List of Figures
Figure 7-1: Graph of maximum static margin against CG position 3
Figure 7- C 4
Figure 7-3: Canard planform 5
Figure 7-4: Tail planform 9
Figure 7-5: Wing actuation system 14
Figure 7-6: Canard and tail actuation system 14
Figure 7-7: Flight control architecture 15


Group 4F - 1 - M. Dennison
B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-1 Introduction
S
[1],

[1]. Applying these definitions to an aircraft shows that, in the design stages, it must be
ensured that the aircraft will resist undesired changes in attitude and position whilst still allowing
the pilot to implement desired changes. This document outlines the measures taken during design to
ensure that Colossus remains both stable and controllable.

7-2 Longitudinal Stability
Longitudinal stability is the aspect of stability concerned with displacements and attitudes in the x-z
plane, primarily changes in altitude and pitch angle. While both the main wing and canard have
bearing on the longitudinal stability of the aircraft, it is the canard that can most feasibly be
designed to ensure stability, with the main wing being primarily designed as a lifting, rather than
controlling, surface.

The aircraft has been designed with the intention that the longitudinal stability will meet CSs 25.171,
25.173 and 25.175 of Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes [2].

7-2-1 Canard Sizing and Positioning
The horizontal tail sizing technique outlined in the aerodynamics, stability and control section of the
design manual [3] is not suitable for this configuration. This is due to the assumption that during
flight, CG will move backwards as fuel is burnt. However, for a canard configuration, the CG moves
forwards as fuel is burnt and so the take-off rotation parameter - usually one of the key sizing
parameters - does not apply. Therefore, a different sizing procedure had to be adopted for the
canard.

Review of literature on canard sizing suggested that, although a canard wing area equivalent to 25%
of the wing area was ideal to minimise drag [4], canards with more than 15% wing area tended to be
overly destabilising. Therefore, an initial canard size of 15% wing area was selected as a compromise
between requirements for low drag and static stability. Further analysis showed that reduction of
the canard area to only 14% of the main wing area produced a reduction in induced drag as well as
decreasing the destabilising influence of the fore-plane.

It had previously been noted that the wake from the canard would have an effect on the lift
distribution of the main wing. To prevent the effect of the wake being too great, the longitudinal
separation of the two lifting surfaces was maximised such that the downwash from the canard
would pass well below the flow field generated by the main wing, thereby limiting or eliminating any
interaction between the two surfaces.


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-2-2 Digital Datcom Analysis
Using the aircraft geometry data, along with aerofoil section and surface planform data, an
approximate model of the aircraft was constructed. The input file is simple and, as such, the
geometry of Colossus had to be vastly simplified in order for the model to be run. While this reduced
the veracity of the model, the data produced is still more accurate than hand calculations as, the
source data being empirical, effects such as viscosity and vorticity are accounted for. The
assumptions made in the construction of the fuselage model were that the constant diameter
section of the fuselage was cylindrical with a diameter equal to the height of the real fuselage and
that the nose and tail cones were not curved, but simple cones. The wings and canard, instead of
having twist and thickness distributions that vary non-linearly along the span, were assumed to be in
two panels, each with linear thickness and twist distributions. Also, features such as the
undercarriage sponsons, engine nacelles and flap tracks could not be modelled, and neither could
the effect of deployed flaps. Although the database did not include data for the aerofoil sections
used for the wing and canard, the inbuilt vortex panel solver could calculate the sectional
coefficients given the coordinates of the aerofoil surface. The Datcom input file used can be seen in
Appendix A.

A Digital Datcom analysis of this model was then run. From this computation, it was possible to
ascertain the variation of several CC M M
importantly from a stability perspective, the values of
C
M
and
C
L
were calculated at a range of

C -
L M
produces a graph of static margin variation with angle of

attack. Using this, and varying the input CG position, it is possible to ascertain the foremost and
rearmost CG positions that keep the static margin within a certain range for a given range of flight
conditions.

7-2-3 Static Margin and Allowable CG Range
The static margin range that has been selected is 5% to 35% MAC. The rear limit, 5% MAC, has been
selected as this is the conventional safety margin applied to ensure that the aircraft remains
statically stable. The forward limit has been selected to produce an allowable CG range of
comparable size to competitor aircraft. It was felt during design that one of the crucial parameters
for producing a viable freighter aircraft was that there had to be at least some freedom of cargo
positioning, and therefore cargo CG position. Producing an aircraft with a more restricted static
margin - and therefore centre of gravity position - was felt to have a greater impact on freighter
operations than having a potentially more than desirably stable aircraft. In addition, the large
moment arm to the canard control surfaces and high power of the lifting surfaces mounted there
were felt to ameliorate the risk that the aircraft would be less controllable than comparable aircraft.


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
35 37 39 41 43 45
CG Position (m)
M
a
x
.

S
t
a
t
i
c

M
a
r
g
i
n

(
%

M
A
C
)

Figure 7-1: Graph of maximum static margin against CG position

This static margin range corresponds to an allowable CG range of between 39.26m and 41.5m from
the nose of the aircraft. Fig. 7-1 shows how maximum static margin increases as CG moves towards
the nose. If the CG moves further forward than 39.26m from the nose, the maximum static margin
becomes too large, as can be seen in the figure. The result of an increasing static margin is that the
aircraft starts to become overly stable, r ,
eventually preventing crucial manoeuvres such as flaring, thereby presenting a danger to the
aircraft. Conversely, if the CG moves aft more than 41.5m from the nose, the angle of attack at
which the static margin drops below 5% becomes too small and it becomes dangerous to perform
pitch manoeuvres as they may cause the aircraft to become unstable.

Fig. 7-2 displays the variation of static margin with angle of attack for the 5500nm design mission
with 175t payload. As can be seen, the static margin reduces with angle of attack, up to a point, after
which it increases again. This effect is created purely by the flow interaction of the canard wake with
the wing lifting field. As the turbulent flow from the canard impinges on the wing, it decreases the
magnitude of the nose-down pitching moment generated by the wing, reducing the ability of the
aircraft to recover from pitch disturbances. However, above angles of attack greater than 11 at
cruise, the wake passes over the top of the wing, rather than impacting directly on it. This reduces
the effect of the interaction again. It should also be noted, however, that the interaction only causes
a reduction in static margin below the acceptable 5% MAC at around 9 at take-off, 8 at
cruise and over 10 on landing. These angles of attack are greater than those at which the aircraft
operates in any of these mission phases. It can therefore be stated that the aircraft will remain
statically stable at any mission phase, even without the assistance of a stability augmentation
system.


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-5 0 5 10 15

S
t
a
t
i
c

M
a
r
g
i
n

(
%

M
A
C
)
Take-Off Cruise - First Stage Cruise - Second Stage Cruise - Third Stage
Cruise - End Approach Zero Fuel Landing

Figure 7-2'

7-2-4 Nose Wheel Reaction
In addition to the airborne stability calculations, it was necessary to ensure that the reaction load
produced at the nose wheels was acceptable. The load on the nose wheels cannot be allowed to
exceed 15% of the MTOW of the aircraft, as this makes the aircraft both difficult to steer on the
ground and more prone to nose wheel slam or collapse on landing. It also cannot be allowed to be
less than 5% of the MTOW of the aircraft, as this would give insufficient tire friction for effective
steering.

The undercarriage has been designed with these parameters in mind. The two critical cases for the
nose wheel reaction are when the aircraft is at MZFW and at MTOW, as these are when the CG is at
its most forward and aft positions respectively. When the aircraft is at its MTOW, the allowable CG
range is between 40.62m and 44.35m from the nose, relating to 15% and 5% nose wheel reaction
respectively. The CG position when the aircraft is at MTOW, as produced by the weights and balance
team, is 40.785m from the nose [5]. When at MZFW, the allowable CG range is between 37.86m and
44.35m from the nose, while the actual CG position is at 39.51m from the nose. As can be seen, the
actual CG positions are both within the allowable CG ranges. It is important to note that the
allowable CG ranges described here do not apply while the aircraft is airborne, only when the full
weight of the aircraft is being supported by the undercarriage. For discussion of the design and sizing
of the undercarriage, see Technical Report 3: Structures [6].


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-2-5 Final Canard Sizing
Details of the canard geometry and structural parameters can be found in Table 7-1 and the
planform of the canard can be seen in Fig. 7-3.

Part Item STD
Canard
(Reference)
Span 25.5m / 83.7ft
Area 111m2 / 1195ft2
Aspect Ratio 5.87
Anhedral 0
Quarter Chord Sweep 35
Taper Ratio 0.3
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 4.76m / 15.62ft
Quarter chord MAC from fuselage nose 12.23m / 40.12ft
Quarter chord MAC height 2.49m / 8.17ft
Lateral MAC location 5.23m / 17.16ft
thickness/chord ratio: root, tip 0.14, 0.105
Spar location (% chord, front / rear) 15% / 70%
Fuel Volume (net) 36250L / 9576 USG
Table 7-1: Canard geometry and structural parameters

Figure7-3: Canard Planform


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-3 Lateral Stability
Lateral stability analysis was performed with the purpose of ascertaining the necessary size for the
vertical tail in order to maintain directional stability despite various perturbing influences. Each of
these influences has been considered as an individual sizing case. The fin has been sized to meet all
cases.

The aircraft has been designed with the intention that the lateral stability will meet CSs 25.177 and
25.181 [2].

The following parameters have been used in the calculation of the required fin size. The lateral
derivatives have been assumed to be equal to those of the reference aircraft, the Airbus A330. The
rudder effectiveness factor has also been assumed to be equal to that of the A330, and linear
interpolation has been applied between the data points to give a value of K
r
at any rudder
deflection.

Main Wing Area (S
W
) 680m
2

Wing Mean Aerodynamic Chord (l
a
) 10.11m
Span-wise Position of Outboard Engine (y
T
) 25.70m
Longitudinal Position of rearmost CG relative to Wing AC (x
CG AC
) -7.65m
Tail Arm (l
V
) 27.42m
C
y
WFP
/ -0.43
C
y
V
/ -3.726
C
y
V
/
r
1.892
C
N
WFP
/ -0.462
Minimum Airborne Control Speed (V
MC
A
) 72.02m/s
Minimum Ground Control Speed (V
MC
G
) 72.02m/s
Approach Speed (V
APP
) 79.74m/s
Cross-wind Speed (V
CW
) 12.86m/s
Lift Coefficient at Take-off (C
L T/O
) 2.604
Thrust Coefficient at V
MC
A
(C
T
A
) 0.1647
Thrust Coefficient at V
MC
G
(C
T
G
) 0.1647
Windmill Drag Coefficient at V
MC
A
(C
D WM
A
) 0.0013
Windmill Drag Coefficient at V
MC
G
(C
D WM
G
) 0.0013
M A 8 A CLl 0.0873rads
Maximum Rudder Deflectio
r max
) 0.5236rads
Maximum Rudder Deflection in Cross-
r CW
) 0.3665rads
Rudder Effectiveness Factor at 30 (K
r 30
) 0.900
Rudder Effectiveness Factor at 21 (K
r 21
) 0.996
Table 7-2: Fin sizing parameters


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-3-1 Cross-wind Landing
The fin must be sufficient in size such that the aircraft is capable of maintaining a straight flight path
on landing when subject to a 25 knot (12.86 m/s) cross-wind. The cross-wind induces a side-slip

CW
) as calculated below.

)
V
V
( tan =
App
CW 1
CW

The re
CW
is 0.1599. Using this value and the parameters listed in Table 7-2, the
equation below can be used to work out the required fin area ratio such that the aircraft can
maintain a straight approach in a cross-wind.

( )
a
v
r
V
Y
V
Y
CW
a
AC CG
WFP
Y
WFP
N
l
l
r r
C
CW
C
l
x
C
v
) K + (
) 0.25 - + (
=
S
S

For this case, the required fin area ratio is 0.001335.

7-3-2 Dynamic Stability
The dynamic lateral stability of an aircraft is usually determined by the qualities of the Dutch Roll
mode at low speeds. However, this involves complex analysis involving nine lateral derivatives and
mass distributions throughout the airframe. Therefore, the fin should be sized to provide an
acceptable level of directional, or weathercock, stability. To achieve this acceptable level, whereby
the aircraft recovers from changes in sideslip angle, the value of C
n
should be greater than 1.25 [3].
Using this and the parameters in Table 7-2, the required fin area ratio can be calculated, using the
equation below.

) - 25 . 0 + (
C - ) 0.25 - ( -
=
S
S
a
CG
a
v
V
Y
a
AC CG
WFP
Y
WFP
N
l
x
l
l
C
N
l
x
C
V

For this case, the required fin area ratio is 0.1548.

7-3-3 Yawing Moment with OEI on Take-off Run
It is a requirement that the fin be capable of reacting the unbalanced yawing moment produced in
the case of one engine failing on the take-off run. This assumes that the undercarriage provides no
side force reaction. The engine that fails produces windmill drag and does not produce thrust to

B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

balance the thrust produced by the corresponding engine on the opposite wing. The equation below
calculates the fin area ratio necessary to react this yawing moment.

r
C
l
l
) C + C (
V
K
) (
=
S
S
r
V
Y
a
V
r
a
l
T
y G
WM D
G
T

The fin area ratio required for this sizing case is 0.1364.

7-3-4 Yawing Moment and Side Force with OEI while Airborne
When the aircraft is airborne, it is able to both yaw and translate in the lateral plane. Therefore,
equations relating the fin size to yawing moment and side force must be solved together to ensure
that the aircraft reaches a state of equilibrium. Also, unlike the other cases, it is permissible for the
aircraft to assume a roll angle, assisting the reaction at the tail fin with a component of the lift force.
In order that the aircraft reach a state of equilibrium, the two equations below must be solved
simultaneously for
S
S
V
1 ideways component of the unbalanced
thrust and drag to the side force generated by the fin, while the second equation relates the yawing
moments produced by the unbalanced thrust and drag to the reaction moment at the vertical tail.
r r
C
L
V
K +
- C -
=
S
S
r
V
Y
V
Y
WFP
Y

) K - (
) C + (C - )) 25 . 0 - ( + (
=
S
S
r r
C
l
l
l
y
A
WM D
A
T
l
x
C
V
r
V
Y
V
Y
a
V
a
t
a
AC CG
WFP
Y
WFP
N

The result of solving these two equations is that a fin area ratio of 0.1601 is required.

7-3-5 Final Fin Sizing
The largest fin area ratio required by the sizing cases was 0.1601, required to maintain the aircraft in
equilibrium while airborne at V
MC
A

when one engine failed. When multiplied by the reference wing
area, the reference area of the vertical fin is calculated as 108.86m
2
.

Although the planform of the A330 tail is provided [3], it was not felt to be suitable for
implementation on Colossus. The relatively large size of the tail meant that if the A330 planform had
been adopted, the root chord of the fin would have been over 15m and the structure at the root

B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

could impinged on cargo volume. Because of this, it was decided to adopt a planform with a smaller
root chord. The height was kept constant and the tip chord increased in order to maintain a constant
area. The selected fin planform is described in Table 7-3 and shown in fig. 7-4.

Part
Item STD
Vertical Tail
(reference)
Area (including rudder) 108.86
Aspect ratio 1.33
Quarter chord sweep 40.7
Taper ratio 0.5
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 9.5275
Quarter chord MAC from fuselage nose 68.41
Quarter chord MAC height 5.045
Tail arm 24.71
Tail volume 2689.93
Spar location (% chord, front /rear) 15% / 65%
Thickness to chord; root / tip 10% / 10%
Table 7-3: Fin geometry and structural parameters

Figure 7-4: Tail Planform

7-4 Derivative Empennage
Consideration has been taken of the possibility of having to re-size the empennage if the proposed
higher payload derivative is to be put into service. The results of this consideration are detailed here.

7-4-1 Canard Sizing for Derivative
Since the plan for the derivative aircraft, the Colossus-200, is for fuselage plugs to be inserted
forward of the canard and aft of the wing, the distance between the canard and wing will be
identical to that of the original aircraft. This will mean that although the stretched version will
exhibit a reduced range and performance, the canard should not need to be re-sized to maintain

B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

stability. The addition of mass in front of and behind the centre of gravity should also mean that the
CG position does not move very far. This should mean that the static margin for the derivative is
similar to the original aircraft. With the increase in fuselage length, it may be possible to increase the
size of the forward trim tank, described in section 7-5-3-1 to provide greater control over the CG
position in flight, further reducing the need for changes to the sizes or positions of the aerodynamic
surfaces.

It is worth noting that, were a lower-payload, shorter-fuselage derivative to be proposed, then the
canard sizing would have to be considered to ensure that the aircraft was both stable and not
susceptible to increased interactions between the wing and canard flow fields. However, no reduced
payload derivative is being proposed, and such consideration is therefore pointless.

7-4-2 Fin Sizing for Derivative
Increasing the length of the fuselage in order to accommodate more payload will increase the
magnitude of the WFP derivatives in the lateral stability equations, which would suggest that the fin
will become undersized for the derivative. However, another effect of increasing the length of the
fuselage, specifically between the centre of gravity and the fin, is that the tail arm will increase. This
increase in the tail arm and, consequently, the moment that can be produced by the fin, will
outweigh the effect of the increase in destabilising WFP terms. Therefore, the fin for the Colossus-
200 will not have to be increased in size over the original aircraft fin.

If a reduced payload derivative with a shorter fuselage were to be proposed, the inevitable
reduction in tail arm would most likely necessitate an increase in fin size.

7-5 Control Surface Sizing
It is vital that the control surfaces be sufficient to provide the pilot with enough authority over the
motions of the aircraft and that the actuation systems be sufficient to ensure that the control
surfaces are always capable of achieving the deflections specified by the pilot or flight control
system.

7-5-1 Primary Control Surface Sizing
The control surfaces on Colossus have been sized empirically using the data provided in the design
handbook [3] for the reference aircraft, the Airbus A330. The span-wise position of the surfaces has
been altered slightly, mainly in the case of elevators on the canard which had to be reduced in span
relative to the elevators on the A330 tail. This was due to the need for there to be powerful high-lift
devices on the canard to counteract the pitching moment produced by the wing-mounted high-lift
devices. For more on the design of the high-lift devices, see Technical Report 5: Aerodynamics [7]. It
was decided that the span of the elevators could be reduced, as long as the trailing edge of the
canard remained fully moveable. Since the reduction in span was to make way for flaps, this was
found to be acceptable. The flaps will be deployed at take-off and landing, reducing the lift increase

B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

required from the elevators, allowing the elevator deflection to be reduced. With the elevators not
at their maximum deflection, there is still a reserve of control power for rapid pitch changes, such as
go-around manoeuvres. The position and size of the primary control surfaces is shown in Table 7-4.
The percentages given in the span limit columns refer to percentage semispan.

Surface
Hinge Line Position
on Chord
Inboard Span Limit Outboard Span Limit Area
Elevator 70%
7.87m / 25.82ft
(62%)
12.75m / 41.83ft
(100%)
4.238m
2
/ 45.62 ft
2

Aileron 76%
28.13m / 92.27ft
(75%)
35.63m / 107.04ft
(95%)
9.608m
2
/ 103.4 ft
2

Rudder 70%
0.6025m / 1.98ft
(5%)
11.45m / 37.57ft
(95%)
29.40m
2
/ 316.5 ft
2

Table 7-4: Primary Control Surface Sizes.

7-5-2 Primary Control Surface Hinge Moments
The control surface hinge moments were calculated using the procedure outlined in the design
manual [3]. The values of C
H0
,
'
C
H
and
C
H
provided there for the reference aircraft, the A330, were

v P C
surfaces using the equations below. In each case, the worst cases of local incidence and control
surface deflection have been taken to ensure that the actuators cannot be overloaded in normal
operation. The results of the calculations, along with the data used to produce them, are shown in
Table 7-5.

p H
V q C = H

where:
Surface Surface p
H H
0 H H
c S = V
C
+ '
'
C
+ C = C

Surface C
H0
CP CP Deflection Hinge Moment
Elevator -0.0064 -0.0595 -0.302
30 -10940Nm / -8069lbf-ft
-15 5280Nm / 3894lbf-ft
Aileron -0.0758 -0.1 -0.5863
25 -72640Nm / - 53570lbf-ft
-25 41260Nm / 30430lbf-ft
Rudder 0 0.117 -0.43 30 # 371100Nm / # 273700lbf-ft
Table 7-5: Primary Control Surface Hinge Moments


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-5-3 Secondary Control Systems
Secondary controls are those that are not used for short-term changes to the aircraft position or
attitude. They are instead used to make protracted changes to the aircraft dynamics either by
affecting the CG position in the case of trim tank systems or by significantly affecting the lift and drag
characteristics of lifting surfaces in the case of spoilers, slats and flaps. They usually take longer to
deploy or retract, hence not being used for instantaneous or short-term control demands.

7-5-3-1 Trim System
There will be a 36.25 tonne fuel tank built into the canard box to aid aircraft stability. Without this
trim tank, the centre of gravity would drift forwards as fuel in the wing was burned. The solution is
to start with the canard fuel tank full, and as the fuel in the wing is burned, pump the canard fuel
backwards. This will offset the centre of gravity drift.

Fuel flow will be controlled by the Fuel Management Computer (FMC). The FMC will calculate exactly
how much fuel must be pumped back, the rate it should be pumped at and when it should be
pumped. Valves in the fuel flow pipes will be utilised for flow control; the valves themselves will be
controlled by the FMC.

7-5-3-2 High-Lift System
The high-lift system implemented on Colossus features high-lift devices on both the canard and main
wing. The leading edge of the canard has plain slats to 95% semispan while the inner 50% of the
trailing edge of the exposed semispan it devoted to double-slotted Fowler flaps. The wing features
Kruger leading edge flaps over 85% of the semispan with breaks for the pylons and single-slotted
Fowler flaps to 70% semispan. For further discussion of the design of the high-lift system, see
Technical Report 5: Aerodynamics (Reference 7) and for the actuation methods employed, see
section 7-6-2 below.

7-6 Flight Control System (FCS)
The flight control section can be categorised into three sections: the architecture, the control laws
and the actuation methods. All three sections are examined here and in more detail in the Systems
Specialist Report.

7-6-1 Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS)
The EFCS is fully integrated into the common core system (CCS) onboard Colossus. The system is a
fail operational design, as there is no manual reversion available for the system. The EFCS controls
the aircraft in roll, pitch and yaw through five cross coupled control processes:

1. Elevator/Aileron Control (ELAC)
This process controls the elevator position and the aileron channel. Control of both
pitch and roll, with secondary control of yaw through asymmetric deployment of the
ailerons and elevators.

B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

2. Spoiler/Elevator Control (SEC)
Controls the spoiler deployment on the main wing, along with secondary control of
the elevators. This process can control the aircraft in pitch and roll.

3. Rudder/Aileron Control (RAC)
Manages the rudder control channel, along with secondary control of the aileron
actuators.

4. Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC)
Damps unwanted oscillations in the aircraft, such as dutch roll through the yaw
damper and through the primary control surfaces.

5. Stability Augmentation (SAG)
This function monitors the attitude of the aircraft and augments the longitudinal
stability of the aircraft. It has input into the elevators and the fuel management
system to limit the motion of the centre of gravity.

The EFCS implements three different sets of control laws depending on system health.

Normal laws are applied when system health is at 100%.
Alternate law sets are applied if the system performance degrades.
Direct law is used in the event of further system degradation.

This combination of Alternate and Direct law ensures that the EFCS initially fails operational, and
upon compounding failures, fails safe. The details of each law set are shown in table 7-6.

EFCS Control Law Set Services and Limits
Normal Dynamic Envelope protection : pitch limit, roll limit, overspeed
protection
Dynamic Load factor protection: pitch rate, roll rate.
Stall protection
Auto turn co-ordination
Flap/Gear down speed limiting
Dutch roll damping
Phugoid motion damping
Alternate Fixed Envelope protection : max pitch attitude, max roll angle, max
speed
Direct Direct control coupling to control sidestick, no envelope protection.
Table 7-6: EFCS Control Laws


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

7-6-2 Flight Control Actuation System
The flight control system is an electrically signalled, electrically powered system, with position
sensing feedback to the EFCS and pilot. The system uses a combination of electromechanical
actuators (EMAs) and electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs).

Fig. 7-5 shows the actuation system for the main wing, and fig. 7-6 shows the actuation system for
the canard and tail.

Figure 7-5: Wing actuation system

Figure 7-6: Canard and Tail Actuation System

Flap
Flap
Ailerons
Kruger Flap
Flap
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
H
A
E
H
A
E
H
A
E
H
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
Kruger Flap
Kruger Flap
Primary Power Source
Secondary Power Source

Colour corresponds to power bus, i.e.
red, blue yellow or green 270V DC bus
bar.
TAIL
EHA
EHA
EHA
EHA
Primary Power Source
Secondary Power Source

Colour corresponds to power bus,
i.e. red, blue yellow or green 270V
DC bus bar.
Flap
Slat
CANARD
Elevator
Flap
E
H
A
E
H
A
E
H
A
E
H
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
E
M
A
R
u
d
d
e
r

R
u
d
d
e
r


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

The primary flight controls (the elevators, ailerons and rudder) are all actuated using EHAs. The
secondary control surfaces and high lift devices (slats, flaps and spoilers) are actuated using EMAs.

Each control surface is actuated by two, dual power source actuators. This provides each actuator
with a quad redundancy, ensuring that if there is power on any main bus bar (probability of no
power on any bus bar 9.45 x 10
-26
(Reference: Systems Report, Power Systems) which is the
probability of catastrophic failure of the electrical) one actuator per surface will be powered. This
results in very high system reliability, and allows the reduction in the number of tail and aileron
segments, reducing the number of actuators required and so increasing efficiency.

7-6-2 Flight Control Architecture
The control of Colossus is achieved through two closed control loops. The fly-by-wire flight
control loop, and an autoflight / navigation control loop through the Flight Management
Guidance and Envelope Computer (FMGEC). This control architecture can be seen in figure 7-7.

Figure 7-7: Flight Control Architecture

The fly-by-wire control system (FBW) incorporates the EFCS control laws, and combines the pilot
input demands under manual flight, or the FMGEC commands in autoflight. The FBW computer then
calculates the correct control inputs for the actuators, through the ELAC, SEC, RAC, FAC and SAG
processes.

These control demands are transferred to the actuator controllers via an ARINC 629 data bus. The
control loop is closed via a feedback loop using various sensors, such as Linear Variable Differential
Transducers (LVDTs) and other sensors to determine the actuator position and return the data to the
FBW processes in the CCS via the flight ARINC 629 databus. The sensed position and demanded

B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

position are compared and the FBW computer then recalculates a new control signal, taking into
account new demands from the pilot or FMGEC.

The reliability of the system is ensured through a combination of the multiple redundancies within
the FBW Actuator control loop, and the CCS architecture. The FBW computer uses 5 processes which
are all cross coupled, ensuring that the failure of a single process does not compromise the control
loop. Furthermore, the avionics architecture onboard Colossus (Dual flight data busses, Dual CCS)
ensures that the backup architecture will monitor and if necessary replace the primary FBW
computer. This dual redundancy along with the inherent redundancy in the CCS provides a FBW
system that can incur multiple failures without significant performance degradation, effectively the
system will fail operational twice (i.e. each FBW computer on each CCS must experience faults)
before the alternate laws for the EFCS are used.


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

References
1: Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.oed.com/
Date last accessed: 22/02/08

2: Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes CS25
www.easa.europa.eu/doc/Agency_Mesures/Agency_Decisions/CS-25_Amdt4.pdf
Date last accessed: 22/02/08

3: 2008 Design Handbook Section 7: Aerodynamics, Stability and Control
University of Bristol/Airbus UK

4: Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach - Fourth Edition
Daniel P. Raymer. AIAA Education Series, New York: 2006

5: Technical Report 4: Weights and Balance
T. Petzold, P. Gallagher and M. Smallwood

6: Technical Report 3: Structures
P. Gallagher, M. Smallwood and T. Petzold

7: Technical Report 5: Aerodynamics
D. Mansell and M. Dennison


B. Hutchinson
M. Bracewell

Appendices
A: Digital Datcom Input File
CASEID APPROXIMATE COLOSSUS
$FLTCON NMACH=1.0,MACH(1)=.235,ALT(1)=478,NALPHA=13.0,
ALPHA(1)=-5.,-2.5,0.,2.,4.,6.,8.,10.,12.,14.,16.,18.,20.,$
$OPTINS SREF=680.0,CBARR=10.11,BLREF=75.0,$
$SYNTHS XCG=40.883,ZCG=0.0,XW=7.0,ZW=-3.75,ALIW=3.0,
XH=35.74,ZH=4.75,ALIH=3.0,XV=60.86,ZV=4.75,$
$WGPLNF CHRDR=6.68,CHRDTP=2.00,SSPN=12.75,SSPNE=12.00,
SAVSI=35.0,CHSTAT=0.0,TWISTA=-4.0,DHDADI=0.0,TYPE=1.0,$
$WGSCHR TYPEIN=1.0,NPTS=15.,
XCORD(1)=0.,0.001,0.002,0.01,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,0.95,1.,
YUPPER(1)=0.,0.0062,0.0086,0.0175,0.0415,0.0510,0.0554,0.0566,
0.0552,0.0513,0.0441,0.0323,0.0154,0.0051,-0.00755,
YLOWER(1)=0.,-0.0062,-0.0086,-0.0175,-0.0415,-0.0511,-0.0556,-0.0564,
-0.0526,-0.0428,-0.0270,-0.0092,-0.0004,-0.0023,-0.00755$
$HTPLNF CHRDTP=3.74,CHRDR=14.4,SSPN=37.5,SSPNE=34.57,
SAVSI=33.0,CHSTAT=0.0,TWISTA=-4.0,DHDADI=-2.0,TYPE=1.0,$
$HTSCHR TYPEIN=1.0,NPTS=15.,
XCORD(1)=0.,0.001,0.002,0.01,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,0.95,1.,
YUPPER(1)=0.,0.0066,0.00912,0.0186,0.0440,0.0541,0.0587,0.06,0.0586,0.0544,
0.0467,0.0342,0.0163,0.0054,-0.008,
YLOWER(1)=0.,-0.0066,-0.00912,-0.0186,-0.0440,-0.0542,-0.0589,-0.0598,-0.0558,-0.0454,
-0.0286,-0.0097,-0.0004,-0.0024,-0.008$
$VTPLNF CHRDR=12.1,CHRDTP=6.02,SSPNE=12.0,SSPN=12.05,
SAVSI=35.0,CHSTAT=0.0,TWISTA=0.0,TYPE=1.0,$
NACA-V-4-0010
$BODY NX=5.0,
X(1)=0.,8.0,30.0,68.0,78.0,
R(1)=0.,3.55,3.55,3.55,0.,
ZU(1)=0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,$
DERIV DEG
DIM M
NEXT CASE

Ss 7 GRP 4 Fstabilitycontrol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ss 7 GRP 4 Fstabilitycontrol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Aeronautical Engineering

were calculated at a range of

produces a graph of static margin variation with angle of

provided there for the reference aircraft, the A330, were

You might also like