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

net/publication/348237873

Experimental Investigations of Airplane Maneuverability and Stability in Stall

Conference Paper · January 2021

DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1819

CITATIONS READS
3 277

2 authors:

Moatasem Fouda Haithem Taha

Univeristy of California Irvine University of California, Irvine
12 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   1,479 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modular Multi Axis Load Cell For Wind Tunnel and Laboratory Tests View project

Unsteady Aerodynamics, CFD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moatasem Fouda on 16 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Experimental Investigations of Airplane
Maneuverability and Stability in Stall
Moatasem Fouda1 and Haithem Taha2
University of California, Irvine, California, 92697, United States

The hypothesis of the deterioration of the rolling control authority during stall was
experimentally assessed. The wing drop phenomenon near stall and its underlying physics
were investigated. The effect of the negative lift curve slope right after stall on ailerons’
effectiveness was studied. The required negative pitching moment to recover an airplane from
stall was also studied. The airplane model and load balance used in this experiment were
designed specifically for wind tunnel testing at high angles of attack up to 62 degrees at
moderate Reynolds numbers. The aileron and elevator surfaces of the airplane model were
controlled using a high-resolution driving mechanism scanning a range from -30 to +30
degrees. Lift, drag, rolling moment, and pitching moment coefficients were measured at a
range of angles of attack from -9 to +62 degrees at different control surfaces deflections. The
stall was monitored using tufts installed on the upper surface of the wing.

I. Nomenclature
𝐴𝑂𝐴 = Angle of Attack
𝛼 = Angle of Attack
𝛼𝑢 = Uncorrected Angle of Attack
𝐴𝑅 = Aspect Ratio
𝑏 = Wingspan
𝑐 = Wing Chord
𝑐̅ = Wing Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC)
𝐶 = Test Section Area
𝐶𝐷 = Drag Coefficient
𝐶𝐷𝑜 = Zero-lift Drag Coefficient
𝐶𝐷𝑈 = Uncorrected Drag Coefficient
𝐶𝐿 = Lift Coefficient
𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Maximum Lift Coefficient
𝐶𝐿𝑢 = Uncorrected Lift Coefficient
𝐶ℒ = Rolling Moment Coefficient
𝐶ℳ = Pitching Moment Coefficient
𝐶𝑅 = Total Aerodynamic Force Coefficient
𝜃𝑐 = Servo motor angle
𝐷 = Drag Force
𝛿 = Boundary Correction Factor
𝛿𝐴 = Aileron Deflection
Ɛ𝑡𝑜𝑡 = Total Solid and Wake Blockage Correction Factor
𝑑𝑥 = Distance in the x-direction Between Aileron Axis and The Center Line of The Load Balance
𝑑𝑧 = Distance in the z-direction Between Aileron Axis and The Center Line of The Load Balance

1
Ph.D. Student, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, and AIAA Member Grade.
2
Associate Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, and AIAA Senior Member.

1
𝐹𝑥 = Force in the x direction of the Load Balance
𝐹𝑦 = Force in the y direction of the Load Balance
L = Lift Force
ℒ = Rolling Moment
ℳ = Pitching Moment
𝑟𝑎 = Control Surface Horn Radius
𝑟𝑐 = Servo Motor Crank Radius
𝑅𝑒 = Reynolds Number
𝑆 = Wing Surface Area

II. Introduction
Loss-of control (LOC) has been the major reason for fatal airplane accidents during the last ten years of worldwide
operations [1, 2]. The majority of these LOC accidents were attributed to stall and issues in roll control authority: stall
45.8%, sideslip-induced rolls 25.0%, rolls from other causes 12.5%, pilot induced oscillation 12.5%, and yaw 4.2%
[3]. These statistics point to the seriousness of losing roll control authority near the stall.

The stall phenomenon originates from the aerodynamics of a two-dimensional airfoil and is inherited to the three-
dimensional wing surface. There is a huge body work directed to study the aerodynamics of the stall phenomenon,
classifying it into light/deep stall [4], and static/dynamic stall [5, 6]. Stall occurs on a two-dimensional airfoil section
when the angle of attack exceeds a certain critical value (that mainly depends on the airfoil geometry and Reynolds
number) [7,8]; the boundary layer is too thick to withstand the large adverse pressure gradient associated with this
large angle of attack [9]. For a three-dimensional wing, the stall phenomenon is more complicated since each airfoil
section operates at a different angle of attack, due to the spanwise variation of lift and downwash, according to
Prandtl’s lifting line theory [8, 10]. Note that wings are usually tapered and swept back, which shifts the section of the
maximum local angle of attack towards the tips, making the outboard ailerons vulnerable to stall [11]. This scenario
should be mitigated in a proper design; that is, if the wing stalls, the control surfaces should be the last section to stall
(in order to maintain controllability near stall), which is usually achieved by washout [12]. Yet, with all these clever
design guidelines, proper adjustment of airplane stall characteristics remains to be quite a challenging task [12]; the
recent hype about the Boeing 737 MAX is mainly about ensuring good stall characteristics.

It is important to point to the interesting behavior discovered by Von Karman and explained by Sears [13, 14]: While
Prandlt’s integral equation of the lift distribution over a three-dimensional wing possesses a unique solution at small
angles of attack in the linear regime, it has multiple solutions at large angles of attack where the lift characteristics
become nonlinear. Moreover, some of these solutions are asymmetric. That is, a purely symmetric wing under a purely
symmetric flight condition at a high angle of attack may experience an asymmetric lift distribution causing a rolling
moment [15]. If this asymmetric solution is stable, it will be naturally selected due to the inevitable imperfection
(however small) between the two wing halves. Consequently, a large rolling moment would suddenly result [5, 13–
16], as typically occurs in the wing drop phenomenon [17]. Almost every wind-tunnel operator testing a wing in stall
experiences violently asymmetrical distributions and tremendous rolling moments [14].

According to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), a stall is an aerodynamic condition which occurs when smooth
airflow over the airplane’s wings is disrupted, resulting in loss of lift [18]. Pilots are usually trained on how to
recognize an impending stall and take corrective actions: pitch the aircraft nose down to reduce the angle of attack.
However, if the pilot action was not early enough, the scenario may progress into a full stall where it may lead to a
violent uncommanded rolling motion [14, 19] which, in turn, could lead to a tail spin. The FAA Airplane Flying
Handbook warns pilots against using the aileron to counteract this undesired rolling motion before recovering to a
safe angle of attack [18]. The reason, as demonstrated below, is the significant reduction of control effectiveness near
stall so that it may even result in a reversed aileron effectiveness at this high angle of attack; e.g., an aileron deflection
commanded by the pilot to roll the aircraft to the left may actually lead to a right roll instead.

In this paper, we perform a wind tunnel experiment to measure lift, drag, pitching moment and rolling moment at a
wide spectrum of angles of attack ranging from -10o to - 62 o. Ailerons and elevator can be deflected to 30 o in both
positive and negative directions. In particular, we focus on the change in stability (𝐶𝑀𝛼 ) and controllability (𝐶𝑀𝛿𝑒 , 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 )

2
characteristics over the pre-stall, stall, and post-stall regimes. This study will help flight dynamicists better model
nonlinear high-alpha flight mechanics to design more robust control laws in this challenging flight regime.

III. Experimental Setup

A. Airplane Model

Airplane model was designed to withstand the high aerodynamic loads associated with high angles of attack. This
airplane model is made of Polycarbonate/Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (PC/ABS) alloy. Wing, fuselage and
horizontal tail are reinforced with carbon fiber spars. Aluminum mount is designed to fix the two carbon fiber spars
of the wing and the fuselage to the load balance and to minimize the flow induced vibrations. Wing and tail planforms
are trapezoidal. Figure 1 shows the 3D model view and 2D projections. Table 1 lists the dimensions and geometric
parameters of the airplane model.

Fig. 1 Wind tunnel airplane model front, top, side and 3D views.

B. Control Surfaces Driving Mechanism

Two high-torque micro servo motors are used for controlling the elevator and the ailerons. A simple scotch yoke
mechanism (Figure 2) is selected as a basis for designing the mechanism to ensure the same deflection for each aileron
surface while moving in opposite directions. Unlike the Crank-Rocker mechanism, the scotch yoke mechanism
provides the following simple transfer function between the servo crank angle and the control surface deflection angle:

𝑟𝑐 sin 𝜃𝑐 −1
𝛿𝐴 = sin−1 [ ]
𝑟𝑎
where 𝛿𝐴 , 𝜃𝑐 are the aileron deflection and servo motor angles, respectively, and 𝑟𝑐 , 𝑟𝑎 are the servo motor crank
and control surface horn radii, respectively.

3
 Parameter Wing Horizontal Tail
Reynolds Number 𝑅𝑒 170,000 82,000
Cross Section Airfoil NACA 0015 NACA 0015
Span 𝑏 (𝑚𝑚) 561 184
Root Chord 𝑐𝑟 (𝑚𝑚) 100 50
Tip Chord 𝑐𝑡 (𝑚𝑚) 87 32
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 𝑐̅ (𝑚𝑚) 90.7 43.7
Taper Ratio 0.87 0.64
Leading Edge Sweep Back angle 3 6
Trailing Edge Sweep forward angle 2 6
Area S (𝑚𝑚2 ) 50,620 7,573
Wet Area (𝑚𝑚2 ) 45,115 7,232
Aspect Ratio AR 6.2 4.5
Angle of Incidence 4 2
Aileron /Elevator Area (𝑚𝑚2 ) 2,673 1,572
Aileron /Elevator to Wing/ H. tail Area Ratio 10.6% 41.5%
Aileron /Elevator Span (𝑚𝑚) 220 144
Aileron /Elevator tp Wing/ H. tail Span Ratio 39% 78%
Aileron /Elevator Root Chord (𝑚𝑚) 26 25
Aileron /Elevator Tip Chord (𝑚𝑚) 22.5 17.3
Aileron /Elevator to Wing/ H. tail Chord Ratio 26% 48%
Aileron Inboard Span 𝑏𝑎𝑖 (𝑚𝑚) 303.7
Aileron Inboard Span to Wingspan Ratio 𝑏𝑎𝑖 : 𝑏 54%
Aileron Centroid to Centroid Distance (𝑚𝑚) 410.5
Table 1 Airplane model characteristics.

Fig. 2 Control surfaces scotch yoke driving mechanism

C. Data Collection and Uncertainty Analysis

A four-axis load balance was designed and fabricated to withstand the high aerodynamic loads associated with
high angles of attack while ensuring relatively accurate readings. The load balance is composed of four uniaxial load
cells in a novel arrangement so as to measure two force: drag 𝐹𝑥 and lift 𝐹𝑧 and two moments: rolling 𝑀𝑥 and pitching
𝑀𝑦 , with minimal cross talk between the measurable axes. Each uniaxial load cell is composed of four strain gauges
in a Wheatstone bridge arrangement. The load balance is powered by an AC power Wheatstone bridge excitation
supply PSM-. The Model PSMR has a split bobbin transformer for high line isolation. It has remote sensing to
eliminate line drop errors, and features excellent regulation, stability, and very low noise.

4
 Anti-aliasing, single channel and fully programable low pass filter (LPF) of type USBPGF-S1 is installed after
each uniaxial load cell. The cutting frequency of the LPFs were selected to be the bandwidth of the load cell, which
was measured experimentally. The signals of the load balance were acquired by National Instrument Data Acquisition
(DAQ) device NI USB-6211.

A data flow program was built using LabVIEW to process the signals of the load balance. This LabVIEW program
privdes a real time waveform and averaged values for the four global forces; 𝐹𝑥 , 𝐹𝑧 , 𝑀𝑥 and 𝑀𝑦 . Moreover, it monitors,
saves and alarms for overloading, saves the maximum loadings and performs dynamic and static calibration for the
load balance. Figure 3 shows a wiring diagram for the load balance connections with the power supply, LPFs, DAQ
and the interface program. Figure 4 shows the flow chart of the LabView dataflow program.

Fig. 3 Wiring diagram for the load balance.

Fig. 4 Flow chart of the LabView dataflow program.

The data flow program is designed to average 5k samples at 50k Hz sampling rate, which is the maximum
capability of the NI USB-6211. The program also calculates the standard deviation of the measured dataset. The
standard error 𝜎𝑥̅ is calculated based on the length n and the standard deviation 𝜎 as follows:

𝜎
𝜎𝑥̅ =
√𝑛

5
Figure 5 shows the calculated standard error (in the form of error bars) in the four signals of the load balance
(𝐹𝑥 , 𝐹𝑧 , 𝑀𝑥 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑦 ) versus angle of attack at aileron deflection of 15° . Figure 5 concludes two outcomes: First, the
error margin in 𝐹𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑥 is greater than in 𝐹𝑧 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑦 . The range of 𝐹𝑥 is much less than the capacity of load cell
(5000 g), while the combined error of this load cell is 0.3% of the Full Scale. As for 𝑀𝑥 , in addition to the same reason
of 𝐹𝑥 error margin increase, the stiffness of the Model Positioning System (MPS) about the x-axis is not high in
comparison to the y-axis. The low stiffness increases the structural response to 𝑀𝑥 . Accordingly, it increases inertial
loads, which increases the uncertainty in 𝑀𝑥 . Second, the error margin increases after α=10° because of the turbulent
unsteady fluctuations associated with stall and post stall regimes, the aerodynamic loads become non-stationary.

500 3000

2000
400
1000
300 0
-12 0 12 24 36 48 60
-1000

𝐹𝑧 (g)
200
𝐹𝑥 (g)

-2000

100 -3000

-4000
0
-12 0 12 24 36 48 60 -5000

-100 -6000
𝛼 (Deg) 𝛼 (Deg)

200 16000

100 14000

0 12000
-12 0 12 24 36 48 60 10000
-100
𝑀𝑦 (N.mm)

8000
-200
𝑀𝑥 (N.mm)

6000
-300
4000
-400
2000
-500 0
-12 0 12 24 36 48 60
-600 -2000

-700 -4000

𝛼 (Deg) 𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 5 Uncertainty analysis in load balance reading.

The lowest confidence level of 𝐹𝑥 during the pre-stall regime is 96% and 95% during the post stall regime. During
the stall regime, the lowest confidence level is 88% in 𝐹𝑥 , but it is about 94% otherwise. The lowest confidence level
of 𝑀𝑥 during the pre-stall regime is 98%. During the post stall regime, the confidence level becomes 95%, and then
deteriorates after α= 45° to reach 75% at α=61°. During the stall regime, the lowest confidence level in 𝑀𝑥 is 80% ,
but it is about 94% otherwise.

6
D. Wind Tunnel and Test Section Calibration

The Wind Tunnel used in this experiment is the AEROLAB Eiffel Wind Tunnel. Test Section dimensions are
30”x30”x47”. Maximum Speed is30 m/s with zero blockage in case of no model is mounted in the test section. The
air velocity in the test section is measured by two ways:

1) Two static rings by wind tunnel OEM (Aerolab); the first one is mounted downstream the contraction
section inlet, while the second one is mounted upstream the test section, see Fig. 6.
2) A Pitot Tube installed in front of the airplane model.

The wind tunnel test section has been calibrated using pitot tube and digital manometer. The pitot tube was
mounted on a mechanism designed to scan defined locations within the test section (Figure 6). The air speed values
measured by the pitot tube are the same at all points of the whole permissible range of the wind tunnel fan rotational
speed (Figure 7). The air speed values are also consistent with the air speed measured by the two static rings of the
wind tunnel except for region near to the floor of the test section, which is far from the model. The air speed values
became scattered for the air speeds less than 5m/s, and this inconsistence agrees with OEM instructions for the air
speed instability for values less than 5 m/s.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6 Wind tunnel test section calibration points.

(a) Airplane model at AOA = 0° (b) Airplane Model at AOA = 60°

E. Experimental Procedure

The airplane model is first assembled including the installation of the metallic mount, and control mechanisms.
Control surfaces are tested for the full range. Airplane model assembly is mounted on the load balance using two
shoulder screws with transition fit N7/h6 for eliminating backlashes and vibrations. Load balance is mounted on the
wind tunnel model positioning system (MPS) using two barrel screws with the same transition fit for the same reason.

The experiment starts with leveling the load balance using a digital spirit level of accuracy ±0.1°, and then taring
the load balance at this leveled position. The gear ratio of the MPS is 50:1, so by rotating the handle of the MPS
quarter turn, this rotates the model with 0.9°. The static forces are the forces and moments due to the weight of the
airplane model and other components without running the wind tunnel. These static forces are measured vs the angle
of attack ranging from −10.8° to +61.2° with resolution of 1.8°, and resolution of 0.9° only for the stall regime from
AOA=6.3° to 18°. The experiment is repeated by setting the wind tunnel at the required speed and the control surface

7
at the required deflection angles. The dynamic forces are recorded. The aerodynamic forces in the system of axes of
the load balance (𝐹𝑥 , 𝐹𝑧 , 𝑀𝑥 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑦 ) are the result of subtracting the static forces from the dynamic forces.
35
R145/0 Deg R145/60 Deg
30 R145/120 Deg R145/180 Deg
R145/ 240 Deg R145/ 300 Deg
25
R290/0 Deg R290/60 Deg
Air Speed (m/s)

R290/120 Deg R290/180 Deg

20
R290/240 Deg R290/300 Deg
15

10

0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Wind Tunnel Fan Rotational Speed (rpm)
Fig. 7 Air speed Vs Fan rpm at the calibration points.

IV. Data Processing

A. Generalized Forces Transformation

The sign of the output signals of the load balance are selected to match the reaction forces of the body system of
axes of the load balance (x, y, z). The aluminum mount aligns the chord line of the wing with the x-axis of the load
balance. The load balance is mounted to the Model Positioning System, which controls the angle of attack (𝛼). The
transformation from the body system of axes of the load balance to the global system of axes of the wind tunnel to
calculate; Lift, Drag, Rolling Moment, and Pitching according to Figure 8 follows the following homogenous
transformation matrix:

𝐷 𝐶𝑜𝑠(𝛼) −𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼) 0 0 𝐹𝑥
𝐿 𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼) 𝐶𝑜𝑠(𝛼) 0 0 𝐹𝑧
{ }=[ ]{ }
ℒ 0 0 −1 0 𝑀𝑥
ℳ −𝑑𝑧 𝑑𝑥 0 1 𝑀𝑦

The pitching moment is calculated around the lateral axis passing by the ¼ c point of the wing root section. The
axes of rotations of both ailerons are colinear and accordingly, it is perpendicular to the airplane longitudinal axis.

B. Aerodynamic Forces Coefficients Calculations

The lift and drag coefficients are defined as:

2𝐿 2𝐷
𝐶𝐿 = 2
, 𝐶𝐷 =
𝜌𝑉 𝑆 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆

The rolling moment coefficient is defined as:

2ℒ
𝐶ℒ =
𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆𝑏
While the pitching moment coefficient is calculated as:
2ℳ
𝐶ℳ =
𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆𝑐̅
where 𝑐̅ is the mean aerodynamic chord.

8
 Fig. 8 Forces transformation diagram.

C. Wind Tunnel Corrections

The wind tunnel correction for the total solid blockage and wake Blockage is calculated based on the following
suggestion of Barlow et al. [20] for the unusual shapes, since the experimental setup in the wind tunnel section includes
complete airplane model and modular multi-axis load balance:

1 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎(𝛼)

Ɛ𝑡𝑜𝑡 (𝛼) = ×
4 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
Where:

𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎(𝛼) = 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿𝐶 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛼) + 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼)

The frontal area of the airplane, load cell and position system struts and the planform area of the airplane model
are calculated numerically using the 3d model of the system.

To account for the solid blockage, streamline curvature and downwash, the Lift coefficient, the drag coefficient,
and the angle of attack AOA are corrected according to the following equations.

𝑆
𝛼 = 𝛼𝑢 + 𝛿 𝐶
𝐶 𝐿𝑢
𝐶𝐿 = 𝐶𝐿𝑢 (1 − 2Ɛ𝑡𝑜𝑡 (𝛼))
𝑆 2
𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑢 (1 − 2. 3Ɛ𝑡𝑜𝑡 (𝛼)) + 𝛿 𝐶
𝐶 𝐿𝑢

9
 Where, 𝛿 is the boundary correction factor from figure 10.17 in Barlow et al. [20], based on an effective span 𝑏𝑒 =
0.9𝑏, and wind tunnel aspect ratio=1. The effect of applying these wind tunnel corrections on the lift coefficient and
drag coefficient for the experiment without deflecting the aileron and the elevator is shown in Figure 8.

1.5

1
Uncorrecte
d
0.5 Corrected
CL

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

-0.5

-1

-1.5
𝛼 (Deg)

2.5
Cd vs 𝛼

1.5
CD

0.5

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 9 Wind tunnel corrections on 𝑪𝑳 , 𝑪𝑫 ,and 𝜶 without deflecting the control surfaces.

10
 V. Results and Discussion
This section presents the variations of the lift coefficient 𝐶𝐿 , 𝐶𝐿𝛼 , the drag coefficient 𝐶𝐷 , the total aerodynamic
force coefficient 𝐶𝑅 , the rolling moment coefficient 𝐶ℒ , and the pitching moment coefficient 𝐶ℳ with the angle of
attack at different control surface deflections. The range of the angle of attack is classified into three subranges as
follows:

1. Pre-stall regime AOA from 0° to 9°:

2. Stall regime AOA from 9° to 12°:
3. Post-stall regime AOA from 12° to 62°:

A. Lift, Drag, and Resultant Aerodynamic Force

Lift force coefficient

Figures10 and 11 show a typical variation of the lift coefficient 𝐶𝐿 with the angle of attack. It behaves linearly in
the pre-stall regime with two different slopes, which is reminiscent of the NACA 0015 characteristics [21]. The 𝐶𝐿
experiences a maximum in the stall regime, followed by a drop (i.e., negative slope). It then experiences a second
stall peak at 𝛼 = 43°during the post stall regime.

As shown in Figure 10, the aileron deflection has a minor effect on lift force during this linear regime. In contrast,
the elevator deflection has a significant effect on lift, as shown in Figure 11.

1.8

1.4

Aileron Deflection 30
0.6 Aileron Deflection 15
Aileron Deflection 0
Aileron Deflection -15
𝐶𝐿

0.2 Aileron Deflection -30

-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
-0.2

-0.6

-1
𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 10 𝑪𝑳 vs AOA at different Aileron Deflections.

11
 1.8

1.4

1
Elevator Deflection 30
Elevator Deflection 15
0.6 Elevator Deflection 0
𝐶𝐿

Elevator Deflection -15

0.2 Elevator Deflection -.30

-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
-0.2

-0.6

-1
𝛼 (Deg)
Fig. 11 𝑪𝑳 vs AOA at different Elevator Deflections.

0.25

0.2 A & E Deflection = 0

A Deflection = 30
0.15 E Deflection = 30
E Deflection = -30
0.1

0.05

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25

𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 12 𝑪𝑳𝜶 vs AOA at different Aileron and Elevator Deflections.

12
 Figure 12 shows four curves of 𝐶𝐿𝛼 for no control surface deflection, full aileron deflection, full positive elevator
deflection and full negative elevator deflection. During the pre-stall regime 𝐶𝐿𝛼 shows a plateau at a value of 0.11 to
0.13 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 until AOA=6°, then it decreases to a value of 0.05 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 at AOA=9°. During the stall regime, the sign
of 𝐶𝐿𝛼 is flipped to a negative sign. This regime of negative lift-curve-slope in stall is associated with reversal of most
stability and control derivatives (e.g., negative roll damping), causing unconventional behaviors (e.g., wing drop) [17].
After the stall regime, 𝐶𝐿𝛼 recovers its positive sign but at a lower value of 0.03 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 ; the wing (and consequently
the airplane) loses more than two-third of its lifting capability/sensitivity. After the second stall peak during the post
stall regime, 𝐶𝐿𝛼 decreases in an almost linear fashion starting at a value of 0.03 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 at AOA=9° reaching -0.025
𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 at AOA=61°, crossing zero at AOA=43° (the location of the second stall peak).

Figure 12 shows that control surfaces have no effect on the lift-curve-slope 𝐶𝐿𝛼 except around the stall point
(change of sign) where elevator and aileron deflections seem to promote stall drop (full deflections lead to earlier stall
drop by AOA=0.5°).

Drag force coefficient

Figures 13 and 14 show the typical quadratic behavior of drag in the pre-stall regime. Before stalling, with 1°
AOA, 𝐶𝐷𝛼 jumps from 0.005 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 to 0.021 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 (i.e., the drag increase rate quadrupled). In real flight, this
phenomenon accelerates stalling the wings when approaching the stall AOA, if the engines are not capable enough to
catch this jump in 𝐶𝐷 . When stall happens, 𝐶𝐷𝛼 jumps again to 0.04 𝑑𝑒𝑔−1 .
2.2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
𝐶𝐷

0.8 Aileron Deflection 30

Aileron Deflection 15
0.6 Aileron Deflection 0
Aileron Deflection -15
0.4 Aileron Deflection -30

0.2

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 13 𝑪𝑫 vs AOA at different Aileron Deflections.

Similar to 𝐶𝐿 curves, aileron deflection has a minor effect on 𝐶𝐷 curves including promoting the stall kink earlier
with AOA=0.5°.Unlike 𝐶𝐿 curves, the elevator deflection has an appreciable effect on drag in the post stall regime,
as shown in Figure 14. In this regime, the flow is fully separated behind the wing and tail. A downward (positive)
elevator deflection, in addition to exacerbating stall, would directly face the wind, increases drag. In contrast, an
upward (negative) elevator deflection would mitigate stall effects on the tail, and more importantly would be in the
separated flow regime; it would not encounter a fresh airstream. Hence, the drag is decreased.

13
 2.2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
𝐶𝐷

0.8
Elevator Deflection 30
0.6 Elevator Deflection 15
Elevator Deflection 0
0.4
Elevator Deflection -15
0.2
Elevator Deflection -30
0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
𝛼 (Deg)
Fig. 14 𝑪𝑫 vs AOA at different Elevator Deflections.

Drag polar

Figure 15 shows the minor effect of the aileron deflection on the drag during the pre-stall regime in the drag polar
plot and shows no aileron effect during the post stall regime. In contrary, the elevator deflection has no effect on the
drag polar in the pre-stall regime, but it has a minor effect in the post stall regime, as shown in Figure 16.
1.7

1.4

1.1
Aileron Deflection 30
0.8 Aileron Deflection 15
Aileron Deflection 0
0.5 Aileron Deflection -15
𝑪𝑳

Aileron Deflection -30

0.2

-0.1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

-0.4

-0.7

-1
𝑪𝑫

Fig. 15 Drag Polar 𝑪𝑳 vs 𝑪𝑫 at different Aileron Deflections.

14
 1.7

1.4

1.1
Elevator Deflection 30
0.8 Elevator Deflection 15
Elevator Deflection 0
0.5
Elevator Deflection -15
𝑪𝑳

0.2 Elevator Deflection -.30

-0.1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

-0.4

-0.7

-1
𝑪𝑫

Fig. 16 Drag Polar 𝑪𝑳 vs 𝑪𝑫 different Elevator Deflections.

Total aerodynamic force Coefficient

The total aerodynamic force coefficient 𝐶𝑅 , gives different perspective for wing performance since the drag force
is relatively high with respect to the lift force during the post stall regime. During the pre-stall and stall regimes, 𝐶𝑅
behaves in a typical way to 𝐶𝐿 , because the low values of 𝐶𝐷 compared with the values of 𝐶𝐿 . 𝐶𝑅 is almost linear,
changing the slope slightly after AOA=6° like the two different 𝐶𝐿 slopes of NACA 0015. During stall, 𝐶𝑅𝛼 becomes
negative.

After stall, total aerodynamic force increases at rate almost half its increasing rate before stall. When 𝐶𝐿𝛼 changes
its sign at AOA=43°, 𝐶𝑅𝛼 drops again to the half, and keeps decreasing until the end of the curve, but 𝐶𝑅 keeps
increasing until the end of the curve.

15
 2.7

2.4

2.1

1.8

1.5
𝐶𝑅

1.2
Aileron Deflection 30
Aileron Deflection 15
0.9
Aileron Deflection 0
Aileron Deflection -15
0.6 Aileron Deflection -30

0.3

0
-12 0 12 24 36 48 60
𝛼 (Deg)
Fig. 17 𝑪𝑹 vs AOA at different Aileron Deflections.

2.7

2.4

2.1

1.8

1.5
𝐶𝑅

1.2
Elevator Deflection 30
0.9
Elevator Deflection 15
0.6 Elevator Deflection 0
Elevator Deflection -15
0.3
Elevator Deflection -30

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 18 𝑪𝑹 vs AOA at different Elevator Deflections.

16
B. Variations of the Rolling Moment Coefficient 𝑪𝓛 with Angle of Attack and Aileron Deflection

During the pre-stall regime, Fig. 19 shows that an almost constant roll control authority: for the same aileron
deflection, the rolling moment does not change considerably with the angle of attack, except a slight decrease after
AOA=6°. That is, the aileron effectiveness is almost constant during this range. Figure 19 also shows that there is
a significant rolling moment (similar to that described by Von Karman, Sears, and Schairer [13-15]) occurs at
angles of attack (9°&10°) for all aileron deflections; it is akin to the wing drop phenomenon [17], but due to high-
AOA stall, not shock stall. The sign of this violent rolling moment is negative in most experiments irrespective of
the sign of the ailerons’ deflection; it adds a constant value of -0.23 to the rolling moment coefficient for all aileron
deflections. 𝐶ℒ does not recover immediately after increasing the AOA beyond this value until AOA=18°. Aileron
effectiveness significantly deteriorates during this range; in fact, 𝐶ℒ is even reversed at 𝛿𝑎 = 15°, as shown in
Figure 19. The aileron effectiveness recovers again after AOA exceeds 18° until 𝐶ℒ reaches 60% of its
effectiveness in pre-stall over the range 24° − 28°; this is the maximum value of 𝐶ℒ during the post stall regime.
After AOA =28°, 𝐶ℒ deteriorates again reaching about 50% of its effectiveness during the pre-stall regime at AOA
=42°. From AOA =42° to 54°, another plateau occurs, then a significant deterioration happens until the end of the
curve.

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02
𝐶ℒ

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

-0.02

-0.04
Aileron Deflection 30
-0.06 Aileron Deflection 15
Aileron Deflection 0
-0.08
Aileron Deflection -15
Aileron Deflection -30
-0.1

𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 19 𝑪𝓛 vs AOA at different Aileron Deflections.

Figure 20 shows the rolling moment coefficient 𝐶ℒ vs aileron deflection 𝛿𝑎 at selected values for the AOA. This
Figure provides an insight into the aileron sensitivity during the wing drop behavior and during the post stall regime.
At zero AOA, the aileron sensitivity (measured in terms of the slope 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 of 𝐶ℒ with respect to 𝛿𝑎 in Figure 20) is
almost constant, As the AOA increase, 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 slightly decreases but 𝐶ℒ remains almost linear during the pre-stall regime

17
according to the behaviors at AOA = 3.7° and AOA = 6.3° in Figure 20. The behavior at AOA = 10° shows that in
order to overcome the moment created by the wing drop phenomenon, the aileron should be deflected at angle higher
than 17°, noting that the ailerons of this model are slightly oversized with respect to the full scale airplanes for the
sake of this experiment. The behavior at AOA = 13.7° in Figure 20 shows that the 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 deterioration happens in the
range of AOA from 11° to 18°, where the 𝐶ℒ -𝛿𝑎 relation deviates from linearity and becomes cubic. The two curves
of AOA = 18.3° and AOA = 23.8° show the enhancement in 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 in the range of AOA from 18° to 28°, where the
𝐶ℒ − 𝛿𝑎 curve changes from being cubic to almost linear again. Ailerons are sensitive in the range of AOA from
24° to 28°, but the value of 𝐶ℒ at any aileron deflection is almost 60% of its value in the pre-stall regime.

In order to properly understand the rolling moment enhancement gained in the post stall regime (in the range of
AOA from 18° to 28°), Fig. 21 shows the aileron sensitivity 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 normalized by the lift curve slope 𝐶𝐿𝛼 . The former
is calculated by fitting the 𝐶ℒ − 𝛿𝑎 relation with 1st order polynomial for the pre-stall and stall curves and fitting the
post stall curves with 3rd order polynomial. 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 is obtained by differentiating these polynomials. This curve needs
careful consideration because of the low resolution of the aileron deflection data points. The two curves of AOA =
18.3° and AOA = 23.8° in Fig. 21 show that the normalized aileron sensitivity deteriorates with increasing aileron
deflection. This means that there is another source for the rolling moment in addition to the common differential lift
contribution. This source is believed to be the differential drag. At high angles of attack, the downward-deflected
ailerons create more drag than the upward-deflected ailerons, leading to a differential drag. Due to the high angle of
attack, a significant component of this differential drag will luckily contribute to the rolling moment in the desired
direction.

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
𝐶ℒ

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-0.02
AOA =0 AOA = 3.7
-0.04 AOA=6.3 AOA = 10
AOA = 13.7 AOA = 18.3
-0.06 AOA = 23.8

-0.08

-0.1
Aileron Deflection (Deg)

Fig. 20 𝐶ℒ vs Aileron Deflection at different AOA values.

18
 0.8
AOA =0
AOA = 6.3
0.6 AOA = 10
AOA = 13.7
AOA = 18.3
0.4 AOA = 23.8

0.2

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Aileron Deflection (Deg)

Fig. 21 𝐶ℒ𝛿𝑎 /𝐶𝐿𝛼 vs Aileron Deflection at different AOA values.

Wing Drop Underlying Physics

It is well known in the pilots’ community that a wing drop near stall occurs because the downward-deflected
aileron increases the relative angle of attack of the corresponding wing section, hence stalling the wing of downward-
deflected aileron before the other wing. This differential stall creates differential lift, which is the source of the wing
drop rolling moment. According to this understanding, the wing drop rolling moment should always be in the opposite
direction of the rolling moment created by the ailerons (i.e., manifested by a decrease in aileron effectiveness).
However, the current experimental results refute this hypothesis. According to Fig. 19, the wing drop rolling moment
is in the same direction with the same magnitude in most experimental trial; about 95% of the experiments, regardless
of the direction of the aileron deflection. In the remaining 5%, it happens in the opposite direction but with the same
magnitude, and the direction of the aileron deflection has no effect on the wing drop direction too.

To properly understand this phenomenon, tufts have been installed on the upper surface of the wing to monitor the
stall development, while increasing the angle of attack of the airplane model. Figure 22.a shows that at AOA = 9°,
two symmetric tufts on the right and left wings near to the inboard sections’ trailing edges start oscillating at a very
high frequency, while all other tufts on both wings are stationary, which indicates an onset for symmetric stall on these
inboard sections. Increasing the AOA to 10° (Figure 22.b) makes the stall propagate along the left wing, where all
tufts on the left wing oscillate, and the load balance measure a sudden increase in the roll moment in the negative
direction. This wing drop can be obviously noticed with bare eyes through the slight structural response of the Model
Positioning Structure to this sudden roll moment. At this angle of attack of 10°, all tufts on the left wing are oscillating,
while all tufts on the right wing are stationary, except the only tuft near the inboard section trailing edge, which was
already oscillating before. At AOA = 11°, Fig. 22.c shows that the right wing stalls and all its tufts are oscillating; the
load balance measures no significant rolling moment unlike the measurement at AOA=10°.

The result found by this tufts flow visualization is in line with the fact, discovered by Von Karman and explained
by Sears [13, 14]: there is an asymmetric lift distribution over a three-dimensional wing surface at large angles of
attack where the lift characteristics become nonlinear. Finally, it is interesting to point to the efforts of Hassan and
Taha [22, 23] in developing a novel nonlinear roll mechanism suitable for operation in the stall regime despite the
deterioration in the aileron effectiveness per se.

19
a) AOA=9o. Stall started on both
wings at the same AOA near to the
inboard sections’ trailing edges.

b) Stall developed on the left wing

only
Wing drop happens at this moment!

c) Stall developed on both wings

Fig. 22 Flow Visualization using tufts during stall development

20
C. Variations of the Pitching Moment Coefficient 𝑪𝓜 with Angle of Attack and Elevator deflection angle

Positive elevator deflection shifts the pitching moment curve down, while the negative deflection shifts it up
(Figure 23). During horizontal tail stall and the following wing stall, the pitching moment increases with the increase
in AOA in the range of AOA from 9° to 12°. This behavior will affect pitching stability dramatically. It will be
required from the elevator to double the effort to provide a negative pitching moment sufficient to overcome the
positive pitching moment that comes from stalling the tail and the wing in order to nose down the airplane and take
the airplane back to the pre-stall regime. Figure 24 shows pitching moment coefficient vs elevator deflection at
selected angles of attack. At high angles of attack the pitching moment curves become close to each other indicating
a deterioration in elevator sensitivity. The conclusion of this behavior is that it will be difficult to recover the airplane
from the stall because of two reasons:

• The pitching moment coefficient increases with the increase in AOA in the stall regime
• Elevator sensitivity deteriorates in the post stall regime

0.5

0
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

Elevator Deflection 30
-0.5 Elevator Deflection 15
Elevator Deflection 0
Elevator Deflection -15
𝐶ℳ

-1 Elevator Deflection -30

-1.5

-2

-2.5
𝛼 (Deg)

Fig. 23 𝐶ℳ vs AOA at different Elevator Deflections.

21
 0.5
AOA =-7.3 AOA = 0
AOA = 10 AOA = 14.6
AOA = 43.8 AOA =45.7
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-0.5
𝐶ℒ

-1

-1.5

-2
Elevator Deflection (Deg)

Fig. 24 𝐶ℳ vs Elevator Deflection at different AOA Values.

Conclusion

At high angles of attack near stall, there is a violent rolling moment (wing drop), which occurs due to an
asymmetric lift distribution. This distribution is a result of stall propagation on one wing before the other wing
regardless of the aileron deflection. Wing drop should not be expected in any direction. Aileron’s rolling moment may
not be sufficient to overcome the rolling moment caused by the wing drop at maximum aileron deflection. Right after
the stall point, the flow over both wings is separated, and the wing drop disappears, leaving significantly less effective
and less sensitive ailerons. However, in the post-stall regime, the ailerons regain some effectiveness and sensitivity
because of differential drag: the high angles of attack help the differential drag to contribute to the rolling moment,
luckily in the desired direction. However, this ability vanishes if the angle of attack is increased further (beyond 28 o
in this study).

References
[1] B. C. Airplanes, “Statistical summary of commercial jet aircraft accidents, worldwide operations, 1959–2003,”
Boeing Commercial Airplane, Seattle, 2004.
[2] J. Wilborn and J. Foster, “Defining commercial transport loss-of-control: A quantitative approach,” in AIAA
atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, p. 4811, 2004.
[3] P. Russell and J. Pardee, “Joint safety analysis team-cast approved final report loss of control jsat results and
analysis,” Commercial Aviation Safety Team, Washington, DC, 2000.
[4] G. E. Erickson, “High angle-of-attack aerodynamics,” Annual review of fluid mechanics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 45–
88, 1995.
[5] L. W. Carr, “Progress in analysis and prediction of dynamic stall,” Journal of aircraft, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 6–17,
1988.
[6] W. J. McCroskey, “The phenomenon of dynamic stall.,” tech. rep., National Aeronuatics and Space Administration
Moffett Field Ca Ames Research . . . , 1981.
[7] H. Schlichting and K. Gersten, Boundary-layer theory. Springer, 1960.
[8] H. Schlichting and E. Truckenbrodt, Aerodynamics of the Airplane. McGraw-Hill, 1979.

22
 [9] A. M. O. Smith, “High-lift aerodynamics,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 501–530, 1975.
[10] L. Prandtl, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur angewandten Mechanik, Hydro-und Aerodynamik. Springer, 1918.
[11] A. Pope, Basic wing and airfoil theory. McGraw-Hill, 1951.
[12] R. SHEVELL, “Aerodynamic bugs-can cfd spray them away?,” in 3rd Applied Aerodynamics Conference, p.
4067, 1985.
[13] W. R. Sears, “A new treatment of the lifting-line wing theory, with applications to rigid and elastic wings,”
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 239–255, 1948.
[14] W. R. Sears, “Some recent developments in airfoil theory,” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 1956.
[15] R. S. Schairer, Unsymmetrical lift distributions on a stalled monoplane wing. PhD thesis, California Institute of
Technology, 1939.
[16] J. Chambers, “Overview of stall/spin technology,” in 6th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, p. 1580,
1980.
[17] R. C. Nelson and A. Pelletier, “The unsteady aerodynamics of slender wings and aircraft undergoing large
amplitude maneuvers,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 39, no. 2-3, pp. 185–248, 2003.
[18] F. A. Administration, Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A). Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2011.
[19] N. T. Gresham, Z. Wang, and I. Gursul, “Self-induced roll oscillations of nonslender wings,” AIAA journal, vol.
47, no. 3, pp. 481–483, 2009.
[20] J.W. Barlow, W.H. Rae, A. Pope, “Wind Tunnel Testing”, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 1999
[21] Robert E. Sheldahl, and Paul C. "Klimas “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven Symmetrical Airfoil Sections
Through 180-Degree Angle of Attack for Use in Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis Wind Turbines, Sandia
National Laboratories Energy Report, March1981
[22] A. M. Hassan and H. E. Taha, “Geometric control formulation and nonlinear controllability of airplane flight
dynamics,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 2651-2669, 2017.
[23] A. M. Hassan and H. E. Taha, "Design of a Nonlinear Roll Mechanism for Airplanes Using Lie Brackets for High
Alpha Operation," IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2020.

23

View publication stats