Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Heavy rain effects on aircraft lateral/directional stability and control

determined from numerical simulation data
Zhenlong Wu a,b,∗ , Benyin Lv a , Yihua Cao a,∗
a
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, 100191 Beijing, China
b
Institute of Aerodynamics and Gas Dynamics, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, effects of heavy rain on the lateral/directional stability and control performance of a DHC-6
Received 5 April 2018 Twin Otter aircraft are determined based on from the numerical simulation data. A two-way momentum
Received in revised form 21 June 2018 coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach developed for two-phase flow simulation is adopted to obtain
Accepted 22 July 2018
the fundamental aerodynamic coefficients in the rain condition. Then the lateral/directional aerodynamic
Available online 25 July 2018
derivatives of the aircraft in rain are evaluated based on the linear fitting processing and the strip theory.
Keywords: Finally, the lateral/directional stability of the aircraft in rain is obtained and the controllability is analyzed
Heavy rain by simulation of the responses to unit step changes in the control surface deflections. The present results
Aircraft indicate that heavy rain can cause penalties in both the aerodynamic and flight mechanical performance
Lateral/directional stability and control of aircraft.
Two-phase flow © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Aerodynamic derivative

1. Introduction
Rainfall is a common meteorological condition for aircraft due
to the increasing frequency of aviation activities in this rapidly de-
veloping world. Many flight practices tell us that meteorological
factors such as low-altitude wind shear, atmospheric turbulence,
heavy rainfall, ice and thunderstorms have caused countless cruel
flight incidents and accidents. Particularly, vast previous research
has shown that, heavy rainfall accounted for about 40 percent
of all the weather-related factors affecting the flight safety, even
higher than low-altitude wind shear and atmospheric turbulence
[1]. In 1981, Luers and Haines [2] studied several flight accidents
related to the effects of wind shear weather. And after assessing
the impact of heavy rain, the aviation community began to realize
that heavy rain was a serious threat to flight safety.
The aerodynamic performance of aircraft under rainfall condi-
tions was studied first by experiment, and the aircraft wing is
the focus of the study. The aerodynamic performance of a large
scale model in heavy rain was studied in subsonic wind tunnel
and ground test at Langley Research Center by Campbell and Be-
zos [3,4]. According to the research of Bezos and Dunham et al. [5],
it can be concluded that, when the dynamic pressure is fixed, the
lift coefficient of the wing in landing or cruising state decreases
slightly, and the drag coefficient increases accordingly. The change
* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: jackilongwu@gmail.com (Z. Wu), yihuacaocs@163.com (Y. Cao).
rate in the effective angle of attack has a positive correlation with
the rainfall rate.
The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation
has been developing fast in the last two decades. Since the 1990s,
many scholars have commenced rain simulations with CFD meth-
ods based on similarity criterions for rainfall measurement, the
characteristics of the wing surface droplet splash and the aerody-
namic effect analysis of the wing. Valentine and Decker [6], Bilanin
[7], Yu-Kao Hsu [8,9] et al. discussed the problems and challenges
encountered in raindrop splash models and similarity principles by
theoretical analysis and numerical simulation. Besides, CFD simula-
tions were also conducted to investigate rain influences on ringsail
parachute [10] and wind turbine [11].
As is known to all, modern aircraft design highly emphasizes
the flight mechanical performance, such as stability and controlla-
bility [12]. However, despite that rainfall effects on aircraft aerody-
namics have been investigated extensively, few works about effects
of rainfall on aircraft flight mechanical performance can be found.
There are at least two reasons for this situation, one is the com-
plexity of rain environment modeling and the other is associated
with the multiple components needing to be considered for a full
aircraft. In one of our previous work [13], a two-way momen-
tum coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian two-phase flow approach was
developed to simulated aircraft aerodynamic performance in rain
conditions. The CFD method was then associated with an engineer-
ing evaluation method to calculated aircraft longitudinal stability
and control in another work [14]. It is much more difficult to
study aircraft lateral/directional performance than longitudinal per-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.07.037
1270-9638/© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481
formance, because more aircraft components such as aileron and
rudder are involved. In addition, another drop-related meteorology,
i.e., aircraft icing, has also been shown to adversely affect aircraft
performance, stability and control [15,16]. In this paper, effects of
rainfall on the lateral/directional aerodynamic derivative, stability
and control of a DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft is explored based on
the CFD and evaluation coupled method used in our previous work
[14], which is shown as follows.
2. Methodological description
2.1. Rain modeling approach
The purpose of the CFD numerical simulation is to obtain the
aircraft flowfield characteristics and aerodynamic forces in both the
dry and rain conditions. The governing equations of the air and the
tracking method for the raindrop are simply presented as follows.
More details can be referred to in our previous work [13].
1. Continuous phase
The phase of air is considered as a continuous phase, which
is derived by respectively solving the steady-state incompressible
Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS) of mass and
momentum as follows [13]:
∂ ui
=0
∂ xi
   
∂u ∂ ∂ ui ∂u j
ρa u j i = − pa + μ + − u i u j
∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂ xi
where u i and xi denote the velocity and coordinate of the air. ρa ,
pa and μ are the density, pressure and dynamic viscosity. In addi-
tion, k–ε turbulence model is adopted to model the turbulence in
the flowfield.
2. Discrete phase
The phase of raindrop is considered as a discrete phase. The
raindrops are assumed to be non-evaporating, non-interacting and
non-deforming discrete spheres only subject to the drag and grav-
ity forces. For small particles with densities much greater than that
of the surrounding air, the dimensional equations of motion for a
particle can be written in the three-dimensional Lagrangian refer-
ence frame as [13]
du p 3μC D Re p
= 2
(u − u p ) + g
dt 4ρ pDp
dx p
= up
dt
where x p = (x p , y p , z p ) and u p = (u p , v p , w p ) are the position
and velocity vector of raindrop particles, the velocity vector of
air is u = (u , v , w ), the gravitational acceleration vector is g =
(0, 0, − g ), ρ p is the density of the representative particles. C D is
the drag coefficient of a spherical particle [17] and Re p is the par-
ticle Reynolds number. The upper equation in Eq. (2) is the force
balance equation of the raindrop while the lower one is the rela-
tionship between the displacement and velocity of the raindrop.
The thin liquid film model [18] is used to model the inter-
actions between the raindrop and the wall, based on the local
information. The four mechanisms, including adhesion, rebound,
extending and splash, are based on impact energy and wall tem-
perature. Drop impact dynamics on surfaces and liquid films has
been an ongoing hot topic in both the fields of fundamental fluid
mechanics [19] and practical aerospace engineering [20,21]. Below
the boiling temperature of the liquid, the impingement droplets
can adhere, extend or sputter, while above the boiling temperature,
the particles can rebound or sputter. In our case, the temperature
473
is below boiling point. The criteria for different mechanisms are
based on impact energy and boiling temperature of liquid. The im-
pact energy Eim is defined as [18]
 
ρ w V r2 D 1
E2im = (3)
σw min(h0 / D , 1) + δbl / D
where V r is the velocity of particles relative to wall frames (V r =
V p − V wall ), σ w is the surface tension of water, h0 is the total
height of water film. δbl denotes the thickness of the boundary
layer.
In the extended form, the probability of raindrops having a spe-
cific direction along the surface is derived from the momentum
flow defined by the radial dependence empirical formula of a non-
viscous liquid jet. If the wall temperature is higher than the boiling
temperature of the liquid, an impact event below the critical im-
pact energy (Eim ) may cause the particles rebound back from the
wall. In addition, we sampled through the cumulative probability
distribution function (CPDF) which is obtained from the Weibull
distribution function, and determined the different diameters of
each splash particle as [22]
    2 
di di di
pdf =2 exp − (4)
Dp D 2p Dp
(1) It also shows the probability of finding the raindrops spattered
in the samples with diameter di .
3. Interphase coupling
The change of particle momentum can also be calculated for
calculating the trajectory of droplet motion, which is then added
to the air momentum equation to account for the influence of
raindrop on the air flowfield. And the influence of air momen-
tum on the drop phase has been taken into account in the droplet
equation of motion. In this way, the two-phase coupling alternat-
ing solution reflects the mutual interference. The results show that
the momentum exchange is caused by the movement resistance
between the two phases. The effect of particles on the air flow-
field can be regarded as a source to change the momentum of the
continuous phase. In the subsequent calculation, the momentum
coupling term is expressed as [13]
 3μC D Re p
M ex = (u − u p )ṁ p t (5)
4ρ p D 2p
(2)
where M ex is the momentum change of the particles when passing
through each control body, u is the air velocity, ṁ p is the mass
flow rate of the particles in unit volume.
In the calculation, the air flowfield without rain is first calcu-
lated, and then the raindrop trajectory throughout the air flowfield.
In this process, the momentum coupling term is calculated and
added to the right side of the air momentum equation to resolve
the air flowfield, and the particle trajectories and the interphase
coupling are also re-calculated afterwards. This process is carried
out in loop so that both the continuous and discrete phases reach
a steady state.
2.2. Lateral aerodynamic derivatives evaluation approach
In this study, an engineering evaluation approach for aerody-
namic derivative calculation is addressed based on CFD numerical
simulation and the strip theory [23]. The number of the evaluated
lateral/directional aerodynamic derivatives is thirteen, including
the side force derivatives C Y β , C Y δr , C Y r , C Y p , the yawing moment
derivatives C nβ , C nδr , C nr , C np , and the rolling moment derivatives,
474 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481

xv g
C lβ , C lδr , C lδa , C lr , C lp . Similar to the derivation process of the lon- (C Y r ) v = − (C Y v )β
gitudinal derivatives in our previous work [14], the final form of V∞
zv g
the derivatives in rain and no-rain conditions is written as follows. (C Y p ) v = (C Y v )β
V∞
(9)
Sv   ywg ywg
C Y β(rain) − C Y β(no rain) = (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain) (C lp ) w = (C Z w )α
Sw b V∞
yhg yhg
Sv   (C lp )h = (C Zh )α
C Y δr (rain) − C Y δr (no rain) = (C Y v )δr (rain) − (C Y v )δr (no rain) b V∞
Sw
(6) Then we can get the final form of the normal, yawing and
Sv  
C Y r (rain) − C Y r (no rain) = (C Y r ) v (rain) − (C Y r ) v (no rain) rolling aerodynamic derivatives
Sw
Sv   Sv  
C Y p (rain) − C Y p (no rain) = (C Y p ) v (rain) − (C Y p ) v (no rain) C Y β(rain) − C Y β(no rain) = (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
Sw Sw
Sv  
C Y δr (rain) − C Y δr (no rain) = (C Y v )δr (rain) − (C Y v )δr (no rain)
S v xv g   Sw
C nβ(rain) − C nβ(no rain) = (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
Sw b S v xv g  
C Y r (rain) − C Y r (no rain) = − (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
S v xv g   Sw V∞
C nδr (rain) − C nδr (no rain) = (C Y v )δr (rain) − (C Y v )δr (no rain)
Sw b S v zv g  
C Y p (rain) − C Y p (no rain) = (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
S v xv g   Sw V∞
C nr (rain) − C nr (no rain) = (C Y r ) v (rain) − (C Y r ) v (no rain)
Sw b (10)
S v xv g   S v xv g  
C np (rain) − C np (no rain) = (C Y p ) v (rain) − (C Y p ) v (no rain) C nβ(rain) − C nβ(no rain) = (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
Sw b Sw b
(7) S v xv g  
C nδr (rain) − C nδr (no rain) = (C Y v )δr (rain) − (C Y v )δr (no rain)
Sw b
 
C lβ(rain) − C lβ(no rain) = (C lw )β(rain) − (C lw )β(no rain) C nr (rain) − C nr (no rain)
S v zv g   S v xv g xv g  
+ (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain) =− (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
Sw b Sw b V∞
S v zv g   S v xv g z v g  
C lδr (rain) − C lδr (no rain) = (C Y v )δr (rain) − (C Y v )δr (no rain) C np (rain) − C np (no rain) = (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
Sw b Sw b V∞
(11)
C lδa(rain) − C lδa(no rain) = (C lw )δa(rain) − (C lw )δa(no rain) (8)  
C lβ(rain) − C lβ(no rain) = (C lw )β(rain) − (C lw )β(no rain)
S v zv g   S v zv g  
C lr (rain) − C lr (no rain) = (C Y r ) v (rain) − (C Y r ) v (no rain) + (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
Sw b Sw b
  S v zv g  
C lp (rain) − C lp (no rain) = (C lp ) w (rain) − (C lp ) w (no rain) C lδr (rain) − C lδr (no rain) = (C Y v )δr (rain) − (C Y v )δr (no rain)
Sh   Sw b
+ (C lp )h(rain) − (C lp )h(no rain) C lδa(rain) − C lδa(no rain) = (C lw )δa(rain) − (C lw )δa(no rain)
Sw
S v zv g   C lr (rain) − C lr (no rain)
+ (C Y p ) v (rain) − (C Y p ) v (no rain)
Sw b S v z v g xv g  
=− (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain) (12)
Sw b V∞
where S w and S v are the areas of the wing and vertical tail; x v g
and z v g , respectively, denote the distances from the aerodynamic C lp (rain) − C lp (no rain)
center of vertical tail to the gravity center of aircraft in the x and ywg ywg  
= (C Z w )α (rain) − (C Z w )α (no rain)
z directions; b denotes the wing span. (C lw )β(rain) , (C lw )β(no rain) , b V∞
(C lw )δa(rain) , (C lw )δa(no rain) , (C Y v )β(rain) , (C Y v )β(no rain) , (C Y v )δr (rain) , S h yhg yhg  
(C Y v )δr (no rain) can be regarded as the aerodynamic derivative + (C Zh )α (rain) − (C Zh )α (no rain)
Sw b V∞
of the wing and the vertical tail, respectively, and can be di-
S v zv g zv g  
rectly calculated by CFD independently. (C Y r ) v (rain) , (C Y r ) v (no rain) , + (C Y v )β(rain) − (C Y v )β(no rain)
(C Y p ) v (rain) , (C Y p ) v (no rain) are the contributions of the vertical Sw b V∞
tail to the aircraft C Y r and C Y p , respectively, which are calcu- where S h is the area of the horizontal tail; y w g and y hg denote
lated by the strip theory [23]. The influence of rainfall on the the distances from the one side aerodynamic center of wing and
lateral/directional aerodynamics and flight mechanics characteris- horizontal tail to the gravity center of aircraft, respectively. The
tics are mainly studied in this paper, so in the calculation of the aerodynamic derivatives of the wing (C Z w )α (no rain) , (C Z w )α (rain) ,
strip theory, the longitudinal aerodynamic derivatives (C lp ) w (rain) , and horizontal tail (C Zh )α (no rain) , (C Zh )α (rain) , are required for the
(C lp ) w (no rain) , (C lp )h(rain) , (C lp )h(no rain) are obtained from the liter- estimation under rain and rain conditions [14].
ature [14].
3. Results and discussions
Likewise, similar to the derivation process of the longitudinal
derivatives in our previous work [14], in terms of an untwisted 3.1. Validation of the air and rain models
wing and tail, applying the strip theory we can eventually obtain
the following formulas of the r-derivatives and p-derivatives as fol- To validate the accuracy of the numerical solver for the air
lows. flowfield prediction, we calculate the lift, drag and hinge moment
 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481
Fig. 1. Comparison of lift (C L ) and drag (C D ) coefficients between the experiment
[24] and the current simulation for the horizontal tail.
coefficients for the DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft horizontal tail un-
der no rain condition. The numerical results and the distribution
of pressure coefficient of the airfoil surface are compared with the
available experimental results [24]. Fig. 1 shows the comparison of
the lift and drag coefficients between the experimental and our
numerical results. The comparison shows that numerical results
agree well with the experimental results both in the trend and
magnitude. The numerical results have little difference with the
experimental results at angles of attack between ±14◦ . Consider-
ing this, most of the following calculations are performed in this
range of angle of attack.
To validate the accuracy of the rain model, we calculated the
lift and drag coefficients for a NACA 0012 airfoil under the same
rain conditions and compare the numerical results with the avail-
able experimental results [25], as shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that
for both the dry and rain conditions, the numerical and experi-
mental results match well under low to moderate angles of attack.
Aerodynamic performance penalties with decreased lift are clearly
observed in the rain conditions. In addition, we also investigated
the local behavior of the solver by calculating the local flowfield of
a NACA 64210 airfoil in rain, as shown in Fig. 3. Overall, the pres-
sure difference between the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil
leading edge decreases with rain for both angles of attack, reflect-
ing the general aerodynamic penalties of aircraft in rain conditions.
Another obvious phenomenon is that at AOA of 12◦ , rain causes no
obvious change in the air flow. While at AOA of 13◦ , rain induces
severe separation at the trailing edge of the upper surface of the
airfoil, suggesting a rain-induced premature separation occurs at
this moment, which is well consistent with the flowfield charac-
teristics of the same airfoil simulated by Valentine and Decker [6].
In conclusion, the present rain model has an acceptable accuracy
for the present study.
3.2. Influence of rain intensity
In the calculation of aerodynamic performance of the wing and
vertical tail of the DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft, the computational
475
Fig. 2. Comparison of lift (C L ) and drag (C D ) coefficients between the experiment
[25] and the current simulation for NACA 0012 airfoil in rain and no rain conditions.
Table 1
Mesh size for the components of the DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft.
Component Normal (ξ ) Circumferential (η) Spanwise (ζ )
Wing (δa = 0◦ ) 41 151 91
Wing (δa = ±10◦ ) 41 181 131
VT (δr = 0◦ ) 51 301 101
VT (δr = ±10◦ ) 51 301 101
domain used is discretized by O-type and H-type structured grids.
The O-grids are mainly used for calculating the computational do-
main when the aileron is not deployed, and the H-grids are used
for grid division on the wing with aileron deflection as well as on
the vertical tail. The boundary of the computational domain is set
as velocity inlet condition and the surfaces of the wing and verti-
cal tail are set as a non-slip wall. The mesh sizes of the surfaces
are shown in Table 1. The first layer of the grid adjacent to the
wall is about 0.00002 m. The altitude is 3000 m and the velocity
in the far field flow is 61.7 m/s, to facilitate anaphase analysis and
comparison [26]. The geometrical and physical parameters of the
DHC-6 aircraft used in the calculation are given in Table 2.
Considering the huge workload of the whole study, it is better
to focus one specific value of LWC for the rain condition of in-
terest. In order to detect the influence of rain intensity first and
then to determine the baseline rain intensity, three values of LWC,
i.e., 10, 30 and 45 g/m3 were used first. It was found that of all
the derivatives involved, only these four parameters, i.e., (C Z w )α ,
(C Zh )α , (C lw )δa , and (C lw )β are relatively strongly dependent on
the rain intensity, as shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3. In general,
the magnitudes of the four derivatives are reduced as the inten-
sity increases. Of the four derivatives, compared to the dry case,
(C lw )δa experiences the largest reduction (∼42%) whereas (C Zh )α
has the lowest reduction (∼14%) in the heaviest rain condition. All
the other derivatives show a less than 3% difference between the
dry and the three rain conditions, which can be neglected. In fact,
an intensity of LWC = 30 g/m3 is already sufficiently large for a
common heavy rain while a rainfall at LWC = 45/m3 is rarely to
476 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481

Fig. 3. Pressure and streamline distributions around the NACA 64210 airfoil at α = 12◦ , without rain (a), α = 12◦ , with rain (b), α = 13◦ , without rain (c), α = 13◦ , with
rain (d).

happen in the nature, as LWC has the following relationship with

Table 2 rainfall rate R, i.e., LWC = 0.054R 0.84 [13]. Therefore, considering
Physical parameters of the DHC-6 Twin
Otter aircraft.
the fact and in order to show the significant influence of rain, LWC
= 30 g/m3 is selected for all the following studies.
Parameter Value
Geometric: 3.3. Aerodynamic derivatives
Wing area/m2 39.02
Wing span/m 19.81
Wing aspect ratio 10.06 Table 4 shows the CFD calculation results of the wing C lw un-
Wing MAC/m 1.98 der no-rain and rain conditions. The curves with respect to sideslip
HT area/m2 9.10 angle β at different aileron angles are shown in Fig. 5(a). The
HT span/m 6.30
slope of the curves, i.e., (C lw )β and (C lw )δa , as well as the other
VT area/m2 9.51
VT span/m 2.28 static derivatives, are obtained by linear fitting of the curves using
Aircraft mass/kg 4150 the three-point interpolation method, because the curves almost
keep linear at low angles. Combined with the three curves, it can
Inertia/kg·m2 :
Ix 21,300 be found that the slope is approximately equal under the three
Iy 30,000 aileron angles. This can be physically explained by the much more
Iz 44,990 dominating effect of aileron deflection angle on wing roll moment
I zx 1,430 than that of sideslip angle. Therefore, as the aileron deflection is
fixed, the rate of change in the roll moment due to sideslip angle,
 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481
Fig. 4. Plots of C Z w –α (a), C Z h –α (b), C lw –δa (δa = 0 ◦ ) (c) and C lw –β curve (β = 0 ◦ ) (d) in the different rain conditions.
Table 3
Results for the four strongly affected componential aerodynamic derivatives at the
various rain intensities.
Derivative LWC (g/m3 )
0 (no rain) 10 30
(C Z w )α −5.0796 −4.7989 −3.9993
(C Z h )α −3.4272 −3.2792 −3.0934
(C lw )δa −0.0470 −0.0421 −0.0324
(C lw )β −0.0442 −0.0396 −0.0373
i.e., (C lw )β , is not significantly altered by rain. Conversely, the rate
of change in the roll moment due to aileron angle, i.e., (C lw )δa ,
shows significant variations at all the sideslip angles in rain, as
shown in Fig. 5(b). On the other hand, it is also found that the
roll moment coefficient of the wing decreases under the rain con-
dition, indicating that the wing has suffered certain aerodynamic
losses as well as potential adverse effects of rainfall on the flight
mechanics of the aircraft. Two physical phenomena, i.e., raindrop
splash and water film roughening, have been thought to attribute
to the mechanisms of rain effects [27]. As water drops strike an
upwind component of an aircraft such as the leading edge, a frac-
tion of the incident mass breaks up into much smaller secondary
droplets. The secondary droplets are splashed back and acceler-
ated by the air, producing an ejecta fog layer near the leading edge
and a breakup layer (i.e., a water bow wave) surrounding the air-
foil. Beneath the ejecta fog layer, the rest of the incident drops
deposit on the airfoil, speed up to coalesce with each other and
form a water film layer at the wing leading edge which afterwards
extends downstream towards the trailing edge along both the up-
per and lower surfaces of the airfoil. At some chordwise position
of the airfoil, the water film layer breaks up into many rivulets,
which are thin capillary-like streams running toward the trailing
edge. The acceleration of the splashed-back droplets is hypothe-
477
Table 4
CFD results for C lw in the dry and rain conditions.
Wing C lw (no rain) C lw (rain)
β /deg δa = 10/0/−10 deg δa = 10/0/−10 deg
45
3 0.0105/0.0024/−0.0059 0.0083/0.0020/−0.0031
−3.4094 0 0.0082/0.0002/−0.0082 0.0061/0.0002/−0.0052
−2.9499 −3 0.0058/−0.0021/−0.0105 0.0041/−0.0015/−0.0071
−0.0272
−0.0301
sized to act as a sink to the airfoil’s momentum, decelerating the
boundary-layer airflow and resulting in a decrease in the aircraft
lift force. The subsequent raindrops continuously impact the water
film, forming many craters and waves on the film and thus mak-
ing the film wavy and uneven. The uneven water film is verified
to effectively roughen the airfoil surface, resulting in an increase
in the drag force. Note that the difference between the cases with
and without rain is insignificant at zero aileron deflection angles.
As explained in [1], rain water sheet can clog the gap between
the control surfaces and the main airfoil section and interacts with
the airflow over the main airfoil section as the control surfaces are
deployed. However, with regard to the case of zero aileron deflec-
tions, these interactions are suppressed and thus the difference in
the performance without and with rain is insignificant.
Table 5 gives the CFD calculation results of the lateral force
coefficient C Y v of the vertical tail under the no rain and rain-
fall conditions. The curves of C Y v with respect to sideslip angle
β at different rudder angles are shown in Fig. 6(a). Combined with
the three curves, it can be seen that the magnitudes of the slopes
are approximately equal at each rudder deviation angle. The lat-
eral force coefficient of the vertical tail slightly decreases by heavy
rainfall, which indicates that the aerodynamic loss of the vertical
tail occurs, and reflects the adverse effect of rainfall on the aero-
dynamic and flight performance of aircraft to some extent. Then,
478 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481

Fig. 5. Plot of C lw –β curve (δa = 10 ◦ , 0◦ , −10◦ ) (a) and C lw –δa curve (β = 3◦ , 0◦ ,

Fig. 6. Plot of C Y v –β curve (δr = 10 ◦ , 0◦ , −10◦ ) (a) and C Y v –δr curve (β = 3◦ , 0◦ ,
−3◦ ) (b) in no-rain and rain conditions.
−3◦ ) (b) in no-rain and rain conditions.

Table 5
CFD results for C Y v in the dry and rain conditions. Table 6
Results for the componential aerodynamic
Vertical tail C Y v (no rain) C Y v (rain)
derivatives.
β /deg δr = 10/0/−10 deg δr = 10/0/−10 deg
Derivative Value
3 −0.1136/0.1252/0.3677 −0.1094/0.1207/0.3597
0 −0.2409/−0.0052/0.2386 −0.2356/−0.0038/0.2279 No rain Rain
−3 −0.3694/−0.1314/0.1107 −0.3633/−0.1272/0.1073 (C Z w )α −5.0796 −3.9993
(C Z h )α −3.4272 −3.0934
(C lw )β −0.0442 −0.0373
the results of the vertical tail lateral force coefficient with respect (C Y v )β 2.4493 2.4008
to the directional rudder angle δr at different sideslip angles are (C lw )δa −0.0470 −0.0324
(C Y v )δr −1.3759 −1.3398
plotted as shown in Fig. 6(b). Similarly, Combined with the three
curves, the slope is approximately equal at these sideslip angles.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the pressure coefficient and streamline dis-
tributions around the wing and the region near the rudder before affects the aerodynamic coefficients, but also indirectly affects the
and after rainfall at δr = 10◦ and β = 3◦ . It is clear that the flow- aerodynamic derivatives. It can be inferred that heavy rainfall will
field characteristics have changed at the presence of rainfall. Both inevitably have a negative impact on the lateral and directional
the upper and lower surfaces undergo reduced pressure coeffi- stability and controllability of the aircraft.
cients. The decrease in the difference between them implies an Substituting the derivatives in Table 6 into the formulas (10) to
aerodynamic loss. There is no vortex in the rear edge of the rudder (12), the aerodynamic derivatives of the full aircraft are obtained,
when the flowfield is dry. With rain, a vortex is formed under- as shown in Table 7. It can be found that all the magnitudes of
neath the rudder due to the resistance and deceleration effects of the aerodynamic derivatives have decreased due to the presence
raindrops on the airflow. The vortex may also contribute to the of rainfall, of which C lδa has the largest reduction by about 31%,
aerodynamic loss of the vertical tail and the reduction of the rud- implying that the stability and controllability of the aircraft are
der effectiveness. reduced under rainfall. The experimental results of aerodynamic
Table 6 shows the derivatives of the wing C lw related to β derivatives in the second column are obtained from the lateral
and δa , and the derivatives of the vertical tail C Y v related to β aerodynamic derivatives of the aircraft under the same clean con-
and δr with linear fitting. The derivatives of wing and horizontal dition as that in the literature [26]. Comparing the experimental
tail normal force coefficient related to the attack angle are also results with the estimated results under the dry condition, it can
given [14]. It can be seen from the table that the magnitudes of be seen that both of them are approximately of the same order
these derivatives decrease with varying degrees under the rainfall in magnitude, which validates the ability of the current derivative
condition, which reflects that the heavy rainfall not only directly evaluation method.
 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481 479

Fig. 7. Pressure coefficient and streamline distributions around the wing in the no
rain (a) and rain (b) conditions. Fig. 8. Pressure coefficient and streamline distributions around the rudder ending
edge at δr = 10 ◦ in the no rain (a) and rain (b) conditions.

3.4. Stability and controllability

1. Stability characteristics
Table 7
For the calculation of aircraft stability, the state matrix and in-
Lateral/directional derivatives of the DHC-6 aircraft in dry and rain con-
ditions. put matrix before and after rainfall are calculated after the flight
dynamic model is constructed. Combining the lateral aerodynamic
Lateral derivative Experiment Evaluation Evaluation
(no rain) (no rain) (rain)
derivative and the basic physical parameters of the aircraft, the
characteristic roots and corresponding characteristic parameters of
CY β −0.6000 −0.5969 −0.5851
C Y δr −0.1500 −0.1678 −0.1623
lateral modes are calculated to analyze and discuss the effects of
CYr 0.0642 0.0924 0.0906 heavy rainfall. The lateral and directional dynamic equations can
CYp −0.0321 −0.0240 −0.0235 be referred to in [28]. Herein, they are not shown due to the limit
C nβ 0.1000 0.1439 0.1410 of the paper length.
C nδ r −0.1200 −0.1616 −0.1574
First, the reference flight of the aircraft is assumed to be a sta-
C nr −0.0289 −0.0222 −0.0219
C np −0.0096 −0.0116 −0.0113 ble, constant and level flight at the flight speed of 61.7 m/s and the
C lβ −0.0800 −0.1189 −0.1105 altitude of 3000 m. The rainfall intensity is LWC = 30 g/m3 . Based
C lδr 0.0150 0.0210 0.0200 on the calculated lateral and directional aerodynamic derivatives
C l δa −0.1500 −0.2350 −0.1620 and the basic physical parameters of the DHC-6 Twin Otter air-
C lr 0.0096 0.0116 0.0113
craft, combined with the basic dimensionless state space form of
C lp −0.0803 −0.0874 −0.0710
the aircraft lateral small disturbance dynamic model, the dynamic
480 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481

Table 8
Dutch roll mode characteristics of the DHC-6 aircraft in dry and rain conditions.

Parameters of dynamic stability Dutch roll mode

No rain Rain
Characteristic root −0.000246 −0.000280
±0.010373i ±0.010262i
Period T /s 9.752174 9.857659
t 1/2 /s 45.364695 39.856125
N 1/2 /loop 4.651752 4.043163
Damping ratio ξ 0.023711 0.027274
Natural frequency ωn /s−1 0.010375 0.010266

Table 9
Roll mode characteristics of the DHC-6 aircraft in dry and rain conditions. Fig. 9. Time history of the response of side-slip angle.

Parameters of dynamic stability Roll mode

No rain Rain
Characteristic root −0.002506 −0.002324
Period T /s / /
t 1/2 /s 4.453198 4.801943
N 1/2 /loop / /
Damping ratio ξ 1 1
Natural frequency ωn /s−1 −0.002506 −0.002324

Table 10
Spiral mode characteristics of the DHC-6 aircraft in dry and rain conditions.

Parameters of dynamic Spiral mode

stability No rain Rain
Characteristic root −5.748939e−05 −5.322933e−05
Period T /s / / Fig. 10. Time history of the response of rolling velocity.
t 1/2 /s 194.117819 209.653494
N 1/2 /loop / /
Damping ratio ξ 1 1
Natural frequency ωn /s−1 −5.748939e-05 −5.322933e−05

model of small disturbance flight before and after rainfall can be

established, and the effects of heavy rainfall on lateral and direc-
tional stability can be calculated.
The calculation results of the lateral and directional modal char-
acteristics of the DHC-6 aircraft in the no-rain and rain conditions
are as shown in Tables 8, 9 and 10, respectively. The Dutch roll
mode is a convergent oscillation mode. From the rise time it is
known that the roll mode takes the shortest while the spiral mode
take the longest time to achieve steady state, and the spiral mode
Fig. 11. Time history of the response of yawing velocity.
may even not reach a steady state. Generally, the effect of the
heavy rainfall on the lateral/directional stability is less adverse
compared with the longitudinal effects of rainfall [14]. Specifically,
the damping ratio of the Dutch roll mode increases by 15.03%, in-
dicating the ability to recover stability in the Dutch roll mode is
reduced in the heavy rainfall environment. t1/2 of the roll mode
increases by 7.83% while the natural frequency decreases by 7.26%,
indicating that the time required to reach a steady state will be
longer under the effect of rainfall. t 1/2 of the spiral mode increases
about 8.00% while the natural frequency decreases by 7.41%. It can
be assumed that if possible, the spiral mode will take more time
can reach steady in rain.
2. Control characteristics
The lateral/directional control characteristics of the DHC-6 Twin
Otter aircraft are revealed by calculating the response of each state
variable of the aircraft to unit step control inputs. The results are Fig. 12. Time history of the response of rolling angle.

shown in Figs. 9 to 12. It can be clearly seen from Figs. 9 and 11

that under the effect of heavy rainfall, the responses of side-slip
angle and yawing velocity in the initial 0.5 s are much slower than
those in the no-rain condition. The steady-state responses of side-
slip angle and yawing velocity are decreased in the rain condition,
which reflects unfavorable reductions in the rudder effectiveness.
Figs. 10 and 12 show that the responses of rolling velocity and an-
gle are slowed down by heavy rainfall in the initial 0.5 s. Seen from
Fig. 10 it is shown that the steady-state responses in both the dry
and rain conditions go back to zero ultimately. However, the over-
shoot in the rain condition is larger than that with no rain, though
this result has little significance to the lateral controllability. The
steady-state responses of rolling angle in Fig. 12 also reflect de-
 Z. Wu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 80 (2018) 472–481
teriorated lateral control effectiveness of the aileron under heavy
rainfall conditions.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, aerodynamic performance, lateral/directional sta-
bility and control of the DHC-6 Twin-Otter aircraft in heavy rainfall
conditions are studied via a coupling method of CFD numerical
simulation and engineering evaluation. The fundamental aerody-
namic parameters of the wing and vertical tail of the aircraft in
rain are calculated by a two-way momentum coupled Eulerian–
Lagrangian two-phase flow approach, where the air is treated as a
continuous phase solved with the RANS equation while the rain-
drop is treated as a discrete phase solved with the particle equa-
tion of motion in the Lagrangian coordinate. Afterwards, the static
derivatives with respect to the various angles are obtained by lin-
ear fitting of the aerodynamic data while the dynamic derivatives
are estimated by substituting the aerodynamic data into the for-
mulae derived from the strip theory. Finally, the lateral/directional
stability and the open-loop response characteristics to unit step
changes in the control inputs are simulated and analyzed.
Comparisons of the lift and drag coefficients show a good
agreement between previous wind-tunnel experiment and the cur-
rent approach. Moreover, the flowfield characteristics obtained by
the current approach also agree qualitatively with that calculated
by previous researchers. Comparisons between cases with differ-
ent rain intensities show that of all the thirteen lateral/directional
aerodynamic derivatives of interest, only ((C Z w )α , (C Zh )α , (C lw )δa ,
and (C lw )β have relatively strong dependence on the rain intensity.
Of them, (C lw )δa has the largest while (C Zh )α the lowest reduc-
tions in the studied heaviest rain condition of LWC = 45 g/m3
herein as compared to the dry case, being about 42% and 14%,
respectively. All the other derivatives show a less than 3% differ-
ence between the dry and rain conditions. A rain condition of LWC
= 30 g/m3 is then selected as the baseline condition for the sub-
sequent simulations. Results show that all the magnitudes of the
aerodynamic derivatives are decreased by rain, of which C lδa has
the largest reduction by about 31%. This adverse influence of rain-
fall on the derivatives directly causes deteriorations in the stability
and control. The damping ratio of the Dutch roll mode increases by
15%. For both the roll and spiral modes, the t 1/2 increases by ap-
proximately 8% while the natural frequency decreases by about 7%.
The open-loop responses of the aircraft to unit step control inputs
are also significantly affected by rain. The steady-state responses of
side-slip angle, yawing velocity, and rolling angle are all reduced in
the rain condition, reflecting decreased effectiveness of the rudder
and aileron.
Nowadays, influences of heavy rainfall on aircraft flight me-
chanics have begun to redraw attentions of the aviation commu-
nity. Our previous work is about the longitudinal stability and
control characteristics, while the current study is its extension to
the lateral and directional directions. Due to the great complexity
in the physics of the rain environment and technical challenges to
simulate it, the aviation rain study has just taken a small step so
far. In the future, more things can be done, such as the microscopic
raindrop impact dynamics, similarity rules for aircraft in rain, and
aircraft skin material to prevent aircraft from the adverse effects of
rain.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation (Grant No. 1190117), National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (Grant No. 11702014), Beijing Natural
Science Foundation (Grant No. 3184055), the Fundamental Re-
481
search Funds for the Central Universities. The authors are greatly
grateful to all the above sponsors.
Conflict of interest statement
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of in-
terest associated with this work and there has been no significant
financial support for this work that could have influenced its out-
come.
References
[1] Y. Cao, Z. Wu, Z. Xu, Effects of rainfall on aircraft aerodynamics, Prog. Aerosp.
Sci. 71 (2014) 85–127.
[2] J.K. Luers, P.A. Haines, The Effect of Heavy Rain on Wind Shear Attributed Ac-
cidents, AIAA 81-0390, 1981.
[3] B.A. Campbell, G.M. Bezos, Steady State and Transitional Aerodynamic Charac-
teristics of a Wing in Simulated Heavy Rain, NASA TP 2932, 1989.
[4] G.M. Bezos, B.A. Campbell, Development of a Large-scale Outdoor Ground-
based Test Capability for Evaluating the Effect of Rain on Airfoil Lifts, NASA
TM 4420, 1993.
[5] G.M. Bezos, R.E. Dunham, L.G. Garl, W.E. Melson, Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic
Characteristics of a Transport-Type Airfoil in a Simulated Heavy Rain Environ-
ment, NASA TP-3184, 1992.
[6] J.R. Valentine, R.A. Decker, A Lagrangian–Eulerian scheme for flow around an
airfoil in rain, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 21 (4) (1995) 639–648.
[7] A.J. Bilanin, Scaling laws for testing airfoils under heavy rainfall, J. Aircr. 24 (1)
(1987) 31–37.
[8] K. Yu, An Analytic Study of Nonsteady Two-Phase Laminar Boundary Layer
Around an Airfoil, AIAA 90-25051, 1990.
[9] K. Yu, An Analytic Study of a Two-phase Laminar Airfoil in Simulated Heavy
Rain, 94-23661, 1993.
[10] J. Yue, P. Gao, W. Cheng, Study of droplets distribution on canopy of ringsail
parachute in light rain, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 58 (2016) 156–165.
[11] Z. Wu, Y. Cao, et al., Effects of rain on vertical axis wind turbine performance,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 170 (2017) 128–140.
[12] Y. Tao, G. Xie, Y. Chen, et al., A PID and fuzzy logic based method for Quadrotor
aircraft control motion, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 31 (6) (2016) 2975–2983.
[13] Z. Wu, Y. Cao, Numerical simulation of flow over an airfoil in heavy rain via a
two-way coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 69 (2015)
81–92.
[14] Z. Wu, Y. Cao, M. Ismail, Heavy rain effects on aircraft longitudinal stability and
control determined from numerical simulation data, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., G J.
Aerosp. Eng. 229 (10) (2015) 321–322.
[15] Y. Liu, L. Li, H. Li, et al., An experimental study of surface wettability effects
on dynamic ice accretion process over an UAS propeller model, Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 73 (2018) 164–172.
[16] Y. Cao, W. Tan, Z. Wu, Aircraft icing: an ongoing threat to aviation safety,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 75 (2018) 353–385.
[17] S.A. Morsi, A.J. Alexander, An investigation of particle trajectories in two-phase
flow systems, J. Fluid Mech. 55 (2) (1972) 193–208.
[18] D.W. Stanton, C.J. Rutland, Multi-dimensional modeling of thin liquid films
and spray-wall interactions resulting from impinging sprays, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 41 (20) (1998) 3037–3054.
[19] A.L. Yarin, Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing. . . ,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38 (2006) 159–192.
[20] A. García-Magariño, S. Sor, A. Velazquez, Experimental characterization of wa-
ter droplet deformation and breakup in the vicinity of a moving airfoil, Aerosp.
Sci. Technol. 45 (2015) 490–500.
[21] S. Sor, A. García-Magariño, A. Velazquez, Model to predict water droplet trajec-
tories in the flow past an airfoil, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 58 (2016) 26–35.
[22] C. Mundo, M. Sommerfeld, C. Tropea, Droplet-wall collisions: experimental
studies of the deformation and breakup process, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 21 (2)
(1995) 151–173.
[23] H.W. John, An Analytical Study of the Dynamics of Spinning Aircraft (part 1),
WADC-TR-58-381, 1958.
[24] H. Dale, M. Michael, L.N. Karine, G. Gerald, DHC-6 Twin Otter Tailplane Air-
foil Section Testing in the Ohio State University 7 × 10 Wind Tunnel, NASA
CR-209921/VOL1, 2000.
[25] R.J. Hansman, A.P. Craig, Low Reynolds number tests of NACA 64-210, NACA
0012, and Wortman FX67-K170 airfoils in rain, J. Aircr. 24 (8) (1987) 559–566.
[26] M. Bragg, T. Hutchison, J. Merret, Effect of ice accretion on aircraft flight dy-
namics, in: 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, 2000.
[27] Z. Wu, Drop “impact” on an airfoil surface, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 256
(2018) 23–47.
[28] B. Etkin, Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight, Courier Corporation, 2012.