A Mathematical Perspective on Flight

Dynamics and Control 1st Edition

Andrea L’Afflitto
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-mathematical-perspective-on-flight-dynamics-and-c
ontrol-1st-edition-andrea-lafflitto/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

A Mathematical Perspective on Flight Dynamics and

Control 1st Edition Andrea L'Afflitto (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-mathematical-perspective-on-
flight-dynamics-and-control-1st-edition-andrea-lafflitto-auth/

Advanced Flight Dynamics with Elements of Flight

Control 1st Edition Nandan K. Sinha

https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-flight-dynamics-with-
elements-of-flight-control-1st-edition-nandan-k-sinha/

Deviance and Social Control A Sociological Perspective

Michelle L. Inderbitzin

https://textbookfull.com/product/deviance-and-social-control-a-
sociological-perspective-michelle-l-inderbitzin/

The Network Organization: A Governance Perspective on

Structure, Dynamics and Performance 1st Edition Anna
Moretti (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-network-organization-a-
governance-perspective-on-structure-dynamics-and-performance-1st-
edition-anna-moretti-auth/
Introduction to Aerospace Engineering with a Flight
Test Perspective 1st Edition Stephen Corda

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-aerospace-
engineering-with-a-flight-test-perspective-1st-edition-stephen-
corda/

A Pure Soul Ennio De Giorgi A Mathematical Genius

Andrea Parlangeli

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-pure-soul-ennio-de-giorgi-a-
mathematical-genius-andrea-parlangeli/

Introduction to Process Control Analysis Mathematical

Modeling Control and Optimization 1st Edition Victor A.
Skormin (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-process-control-
analysis-mathematical-modeling-control-and-optimization-1st-
edition-victor-a-skormin-auth/

Addiction: A Philosophical Perspective 1st Edition

Candice L. Shelby

https://textbookfull.com/product/addiction-a-philosophical-
perspective-1st-edition-candice-l-shelby/

Open Quantum Systems A Mathematical Perspective

Dorothea Bahns

https://textbookfull.com/product/open-quantum-systems-a-
mathematical-perspective-dorothea-bahns/
SPRINGER BRIEFS IN
APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

Andrea L'Afflitto

A Mathematical
Perspective on
Flight Dynamics
and Control

123
www.ebook3000.com
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical publications can be:

A timely report of state-of-the art methods

An introduction to or a manual for the application of mathematical or computer
techniques
A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles
A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
An in-depth case study
A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make
independent contributions
SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination,
standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting
guidelines, and expedited production schedules.
On the one hand, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology are
devoted to the publication of fundamentals and applications within the different
classical engineering disciplines as well as in interdisciplinary fields that recently
emerged between these areas. On the other hand, as the boundary separating
fundamental research and applied technology is more and more dissolving, this
series is particularly open to trans-disciplinary topics between fundamental science
and engineering.
Indexed by EI-Compendex and Springerlink.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8884

www.ebook3000.com
Andrea L’Afflitto

A Mathematical Perspective
on Flight Dynamics
and Control

123
Andrea L’Afflitto
School of Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK
USA

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
ISBN 978-3-319-47466-3 ISBN 978-3-319-47467-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47467-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016963423

© The Author(s) 2017

Brief—copyright remains with author.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

www.ebook3000.com
Foreword

One of the remarkable aspects that distinguished the Wright brothers from other
flight enthusiasts at the time was their careful analysis of flight dynamics. This
included developing the first wind tunnel to quantify the aerodynamic forces as a
function of wing shape. Their systematic, scientific approach eventually led to the
first successful powered flight under human control. Since the time of the Wright
brothers, the development of novel flight strategies has required a solid under-
standing of flight dynamics and control. The need for scientist and engineers who
understand flight at a deep level has become even more critical with the advent and
rapid development of autonomous unmanned aerial systems (UAS). In the future,
even more sophisticated and agile aerial platforms will be developed, and the design
of successful flight control strategies will require knowledge of attitude represen-
tations that can capture the entire flight envelop, even though these representations
require the designer to employ sophisticated mathematical tools. It will also require
the best available control design strategies.
There currently exist a wide variety of excellent teaching and resource materials
focused on helping scientists and engineers master the mathematical prerequisites to
work on UAS and other flight control areas. To this body of material, the current
monograph is a welcome addition. The monograph focuses on mathematical
aspects of flight dynamics and control. The list of topics include attitude repre-
sentation using Tait–Bryan (Euler 321) angles, and quaternions, a nice derivation
of the equations of motion of a rigid body, a careful analysis of the common flight
modes, and a mathematically rigorous discussion of common strategies used for
flight control. The material is self-contained and highly readable. This monograph
will be helpful for students and practitioners who are looking for a mathematically
rigorous development of the dynamics and control of fixed wing aircraft.

July 2016 Randal W. Beard

Brigham Young University
Provo, UT
USA

v
Preface

Flight dynamics is a fascinating topic in aerospace sciences, since it requires

competences in several branches of engineering, ranging from aerodynamics to
structures and ergonomics. Understanding flight dynamics is a prerequisite to
design effective controls for aircraft and, in particular, unmanned vehicles. In many
cases of practical interest, the dynamics of aircraft can be considered as linear and
the literature on the control of linear-dynamical systems is extremely vast, to say the
least. Nowadays, flight control engineers can rely on ‘classic’ control techniques,
such as the notorious proportional-integral-derivative feedback control and H2 and
H1 control theories. Nonlinear control techniques are becoming preponderant,
especially in advanced applications, such as the design of military aircraft. For
example, adaptive control, sliding mode control, model predictive control, and
backstepping are still open fields of research in aeronautics.
This brief comprises a selection of the complementary material I present in my
flight controls course at The University of Oklahoma. For brevity, many of the
numerical examples I provide in class have been omitted, since herein, I prefer
giving more emphasis to theoretical notions. This monograph does not intend to be
a textbook: I leave this daunting duty to the many excellent books in flight
dynamics currently available. The scope of this brief is to present in a concise,
self-contained, and rigorous manner several aspects of flight dynamics and control,
which are usually omitted or briefly mentioned in textbooks. As a matter of fact, this
monograph has been written for graduate students and practitioners with strong
interest in control theory and applied mathematics, who desire to have a deeper and
different insight into flight dynamics and control.
This brief is characterized by a few distinguished features, such as the definition
of angular velocity, which I borrowed from Prof. T.R. Kane. This definition leaves
no room to ambiguities, in spite of more traditional ones based on infinitesimal
variations. Moreover, in Chap. 1 I endeavored discussing in detail intrinsic rotations
and Tait–Bryan angles, which are commonly used, though very briefly examined,
in numerous books on flight dynamics. In Chap. 1, a section is dedicated to
quaternion algebra and Euler parameters. Specifically, starting from the definition
of imaginary basis units, the most relevant properties of quaternions are discussed,

vii

www.ebook3000.com
viii Preface

so that the reader can fully appreciate every detail about the relations between Euler
parameters, rotations, and angular velocity. Although most of the books on
dynamics successfully explain the notion of axis of rotation and the role it plays in
the definition of the Euler parameters, the derivation of the relation between the
angular velocity of a rigid body and the time derivatives of the Euler parameters is
often omitted for brevity or proved starting from some nonintuitive result.
The equations of motion of an aircraft are presented in Chap. 2 both as functions
of the Tait–Bryan angles and the Euler parameters. Since the equations of motion of
an aircraft are a set of implicit nonlinear differential equations, the linearization
of these equations is a delicate process that requires some machinery, which is
discussed in detail in this brief. Chapter 2 is also dedicated to the analysis of the
longitudinal- and lateral- directional dynamics of a vehicle without relying on any
intuition or observation of the physical behavior of aircraft, but dissecting the
properties of the linearized equations of motion.
The proportional-integral-derivative control technique, the linear-quadratic
Gaussian regulator, the optimal state feedback H1 control, and the model refer-
ence adaptive control are presented in Chap. 3 and applied through meaningful
numerical examples to the problem of controlling the attitude of an aircraft. Lastly,
Appendix A is a brief compendium of the mathematical tools needed to compre-
hend the material presented in this brief. Appendix A presents also some advanced
topics, such as the notion of semistability, the Smith–McMillan form of a transfer
function, and the differentiation of complex functions; these concepts are usually
omitted in most reference books for engineers, but are fundamental to appreciate
several details on the dynamics and control design of linear-dynamical systems.
This brief does not pretend to be complete. For instance, stability derivatives are
merely mentioned and aircrafts are modeled as six degrees-of-freedom rigid bodies,
in which center of mass moves at Mach number less than or equal to 3. Moreover,
the results presented in this brief apply only if we assume that the Earth is fixed in
space and locally flat. Lastly, this brief does not pretend to exhaustively illustrate all
the control techniques that can be applied to aircraft. The reader is referred through
this monograph to relevant books and publications for further reading on all the
topics covered herein. Hopefully, at the end of this brief, the readers will be able to
better appreciate the work of the scholars who preceded and will follow us.
Writing a monograph while serving as a first year assistant professor has been a
unique experience. The vibrant enthusiasm of the graduate and undergraduate
students I am proudly advising, as well as of those students attending my AME
4513/5513 ‘Flight Controls’ class, has strongly motivated me; I am indebted to
them for their comments, questions, and suggestions. I also wish to express my
deep gratitude to Prof. R.W. Beard, who provided his invaluable comments and
considerably improved the quality of this work. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Oliver
Jackson, the editor of this book, for his outstanding guidance over the course of the
editorial process.
Preface ix

While elaborating this brief, my mind often went to my academic advisor

Prof. W.M. Haddad, who nurtured and guided my passion for mathematics, control
theory, and rigorous thinking. His pristine enthusiasm for each and every of his
publications will be an everlasting source of inspiration for me. Last, but not least,
I dedicate this work to my parents, Franco and Teresa, and my wife Anh. STD.

“O frati,” dissi, “che per cento milia ‘O brothers, who amid a hundred thousand
perigli siete giunti a l’occidente, perils,’ I said, ‘have come unto the West,
a questa tanto picciola vigilia to this so inconsiderable vigil

d’i nostri sensi ch’è del rimanente which is remaining of your senses still
non vogliate negar l’esperïenza, be ye unwilling to deny the knowledge,
di retro al sol, del mondo sanza gente. following the sun, of the unpeopled world.

Considerate la vostra semenza: Consider ye the seed from which ye sprang;

fatti non foste a viver come bruti, ye were not made to live like unto brutes,
ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.” but for pursuit of virtue and of knowledge.’

Dante, La Divina Commedia,

I, XXVI, vv. 112–120.

Norman, OK, USA Andrea L’Afflitto

July 2016

www.ebook3000.com
Contents

1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Vectors and Vector Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 The First Derivative of a Vector with Respect to Time . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.1 Tait–Bryan Angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.2 Rotations of Reference Frames and Vectors. . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.3 Properties of the Tait–Bryan Angles
and Rotation Matrices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5 Euler Parameters, Quaternions, and Rotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5.1 Quaternions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5.2 Quaternions and Rotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.5.3 Euler Parameters and Angular Velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.6 The Second Derivative of a Vector with Respect to Time . . . . . . 28
1.7 Equations of Motion of a Rigid Body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2 Equations of Motion of an Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1.1 Body and Inertial Reference Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1.2 The Aircraft State Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.1.3 The Aircraft Control Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.1.4 Aerodynamic Angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 Forces and Moments Acting on an Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3 Equations of Motion of an Aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.4 Flight at Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.5 Linearization of the Aircraft Equations of Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.6 Decoupling of the Linearized Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.7 Analysis of the Longitudinal Dynamics of an Aircraft. . . . . . . . . 54
2.8 Analysis of the Lateral-Directional Dynamics of an Aircraft . . . . 59

xi
xii Contents

3 Aircraft Automatic Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2 Transfer Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.3 Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.4 The Linear-Quadratic Gaussian Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.5 Optimal State-Feedback H1 control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.6 Model Reference Adaptive Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix A: Fundamentals of Dynamical Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . 91
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

www.ebook3000.com
Chapter 1
Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

1.1 Introduction

One of the main objectives of physics is to understand the fundamental laws of nature
and describe physical events in a rigorous manner. Mathematics provides the tools
needed to accomplish this goal and, in fact, it is not a chance that most of the early
physicists, such as Newton or Lagrange, were also mathematicians. A wide branch of
physics is dynamics, which is concerned with the behavior of physical bodies when
subject to forces or displacements, and a consistent part of this brief is dedicated to
the study of aircraft dynamics.
In this chapter, we define a few mathematical entities, such as vectors, orthonor-
mal basis, quaternions, and rotation matrices, and discuss some of their most relevant
properties. Eventually, these mathematical tools are applied to physics to capture the
motion of rigid bodies in space. Specifically, in Sect. 1.2 we introduce the notions of
vector space and reference frame and in Sect. 1.3 we discuss the problem of comput-
ing the first derivative of vectors with respect to a time-varying basis. The problem
of capturing rotations of reference frames is discussed at length in Sects. 1.4 and
1.5, where we introduce the Tait–Bryan angles and Euler parameters, respectively.
Finally, the problem of computing the second derivative of vectors with respect to a
time-dependent basis is addressed in Sect. 1.6 and the equations of motion for a rigid
body are derived in Sect. 1.7.

1.2 Vectors and Vector Spaces

Vector spaces play a key role in dynamics, as they provide the most suitable frame-
work to describe the displacement of bodies in space. For the statement of the next
definition, let X denote either the set of real numbers R or the set of complex numbers
C. In the following, we will refer to X as the field of scalars and the elements of X
as scalars.
© The Author(s) 2017 1
A. L’Afflitto, A Mathematical Perspective on Flight Dynamics and Control,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47467-0_1
2 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

Definition 1.1 (Vector space) A vector space over a field of scalars X is a nonempty
set X, which elements are called vectors, together with two operations called addition,
which is denoted by +, and multiplication of vectors by scalars, which is denoted
by ·. The vector addition associates with every x, y ∈ X a vector x + y, and the
following properties are satisfied for every x, y, z ∈ X:
(i) x + y = y + x (commutative property);
(ii) x + (y + z) = (x + y) + z (associative property);
(iii) there exists a vector, called zero vector, such that x + 0 = x;
(iv) for every x ∈ X, there exists a vector, which we denote by −x, such that
x + (−x) = 0.
The multiplication of vectors by scalars associates with every α ∈ X and x ∈ X
a vector α · x, and the following properties are satisfied for every x, y ∈ X and
α, β ∈ X:
(i) there exists an element in X that we denote by 1 such that 1 · x = x;
(ii) α · (β · x) = (αβ) · x;
(iii) (α + β) · x = α · x + β · x.

In the following, we will omit the symbol · to denote the multiplication of vectors
by scalars. There exist many examples of vector fields, such as the real column vectors
Rn , the real matrices Rn×m , the complex column vectors Cn , and the complex matrices
Cn×m . It is important to note that the set of real column vectors Rn is a subset of the
set of real matrices, since a vector in Rn is a matrix with one column and n rows.
Henceforth, we will consider column vectors only and therefore we will no longer
specify that vectors are column vectors.
For the statement of the next definition, let X denote R or C.

Definition 1.2 (Linearly independent vectors and basis) Let M  {x1 , . . . , xm } ⊂

Xn and α1 , . . . , αm ∈ X. The set M is linearly independent if

α1 x1 + · · · + αm xm = 0 (1.1)

if and only if α1 = · · · = αm = 0. If M is linearly independent and m = n, then M

is a basis for Xn . If xi  = 1, i = 1, . . . , n, then M is a normal basis for Xn .

Remarkably, there exist infinitely many vector bases for Rn and for Cn . Moreover,
the order of the vectors forming the basis M = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } ⊂ Xn is immaterial.
Indeed, if M is a basis, then also M = {x2 , x1 , . . . , xn } is a basis of Xn .

Remark 1.1 If m = n, then (1.1) is equivalent to

Aα = 0, (1.2)

www.ebook3000.com
1.2 Vectors and Vector Spaces 3

where ⎡ ⎤
α1
  ⎢ ⎥
A = x1 , . . . , xn , α = ⎣ ... ⎦ . (1.3)
αn

Therefore, it follows from Theorems A.8 and A.9 that M is a basis for Rn if and only
if A is nonsingular, that is, if and only if det(A) = 0.
Proposition 1.1 ([28, pp. 54–55]) Let M = {x1 , . . . , xn } be a basis of Rn . Then, for
all x ∈ Rn there exist α1 , . . . , αn ∈ R such that x = α1 x1 + · · · + αn xn .
Definition 1.3 (Vector components) Let M = {x1 , . . . , xn } be a basis of Rn and x ∈
Rn . If x = α1 x1 + · · · + αn xn , then the scalars α1 , . . . , αn are the components of x in
the basis M. Consider the basis M = {x1 , . . . , xn } of Rn and x⎡ = ⎤ α1 x1 + · · · + αn xn .
α1
⎢ ⎥
If we fix the order of the elements of M, then we write x = ⎣ ... ⎦ = [α1 , . . . , αn ]T ,
αn
and we say that x is expressed in the basis M.
Definition 1.4 (Scalar product) Let x = [x1 , . . . , xn ]T ∈ Rn and y = [y1 , . . . , yn ]T
∈ Rn . The scalar product of x and y is given by
n
xT y  xi yi . (1.4)
i=1

The vectors x and y are orthogonal if x T y = 0.

n n
Since x T y = i=1 xi yi = i=1 yi xi = y T x, the scalar product is commutative.
In this brief, the scalar product is intended as a special case of the product of two
matrices, namely the product of the matrix x T ∈ R1×n by the matrix y ∈ Rn×1 .
Definition 1.5 (Orthonormal basis) Let M  {x1 , . . . , xn } be a normal basis of Rn .
If xiT x j = 0, i, j = 1, . . . , n, i = j, then M is an orthonormal basis for Rn .
Exercise 1.1 Let {x1 , . . . , xn } be an orthonormal basis for Rn . Prove that xiT xi = 1
for all i = 1, . . . , n. 
Exercise 1.2 Prove that {e1 , e2 , . . . , en } is an orthonormal basis for Rn , where e1 =
[1, 0, . . . , 0]T , e2 = [0, 1, . . . , 0]T , . . . , en = [0, 0, . . . , 1]T . 
The vector basis presented in Exercise 1.2 is the canonical basis of R3 .
Definition 1.6 (Cross product) Given x  [x1 , x2 , x3 ]T ∈ R3 and y = [y1 , y2 , y3 ]T
∈ R3 , define ⎡ ⎤
0 −x3 x2
x ×  ⎣ x3 0 −x1 ⎦ (1.5)
−x2 x1 0
4 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

and the cross product of x and y as

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 −x3 x2 y1 x2 y3 − y2 x3
x × y  ⎣ x3 0 −x1 ⎦ ⎣ y2 ⎦ = ⎣ y1 x3 − x1 y3 ⎦ . (1.6)
−x2 x1 0 y3 x1 y2 − x2 y1

Exercise 1.3 Prove that the cross product is anti-commutative, that is, x × y =
−y × x. 

Exercise 1.4 Prove that x × x = 0 for all x ∈ R3 . 

Exercise 1.5 Let x, y ∈ R3 . Prove that x T x × y = y T x × y = 0. 

Exercise 1.6 Given x, y ∈ R3 , prove that


x × y =
2
x2 y2 − x T y , (1.7)

Exercise 1.7 Given x, y, z ∈ R3 , prove that

x × y × z = x T zy − x T yz, (1.8)
x × y × z = −y × z × x − z × x × y. (1.9)

Equations (1.8) and (1.9) are known as Lagrange formula and Jacobi identity, respec-
tively. 

Next, we extend the notion of vector basis to introduce reference frames.

Definition 1.7 (Orthonormal reference frame) Let O ∈ R3 , X ∈ R3 , Y ∈ R3 , and

Z ∈ R3 . The set I  {O; X, Y, Z } is an orthonormal reference frame centered at O
if {X, Y, Z } is an orthonormal basis.

Definition 1.8 (Right-handed reference frame) Let O ∈ R3 , X ∈ R3 , and Y ∈ R3

be such that X  = Y  = 1 and X T Y = 0. If Z = X × Y , then the orthonormal
reference frame I = {O; X, Y, Z } is a right-handed reference frame.

In this brief, we will consider right-handed reference frames only.

Exercise 1.8 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered at

O ∈ R3 , and let v ∈ R3 . Apply Proposition 1.1 to prove that vT X , vT Y , and vT Z are
the components of v in I. 

Given an orthonormal reference frame I = {O; X, Y, Z } centered at O ∈ R3 and

a vector v ∈ R3 , it follows from Exercise 1.8 and Proposition 1.1 that

v = vT X X + vT Y Y + vT Z Z . (1.10)

www.ebook3000.com
1.2 Vectors and Vector Spaces 5

Now, consider the orthonormal reference frame J = {P; x, y, z} centered at P ∈ R3 .

Then,
v = vT X X + vT Y Y + vT Z Z = vT x x + vT yy + vT zz. (1.11)

However, vT X = vT x, vT Y = vT y, and vT Z = vT z, which implies that the vector

components depend on the reference frame chosen.

1.3 The First Derivative of a Vector with Respect to Time

In this brief, time is the only independent variable and is denoted by t. Without loss
of generality, we assume that time is always nonnegative, that is, t ≥ 0.

Theorem 1.1 (Chain rule) Let x : [0, ∞) → R3 and y : [0, ∞) → R3 be continu-

ously differentiable. Then,

d d x(t) dy(t)
[x(t) + y(t)] = + , t ≥ 0, (1.12)
dt dt dt
d  T  d x T (t) dy(t) d x(t) dy(t)
x (t)y(t) = y(t) + x T (t) = y T (t) + x T (t) ,
dt dt dt dt dt
(1.13)
 ×
d  ×  d x(t) dy(t) dy(t) d x(t)
x (t)y(t) = y(t) + x × (t) = x × (t) − y × (t) .
dt dt dt dt dt
(1.14)

Example 1.1 (Time derivative of a vector in a fixed reference frame) Let I = {O; X,
Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered at O ∈ R3 and

r (t) = r x (t)X + r y (t)Y + r z (t)Z , t ≥ 0, (1.15)

where r x , r y , r z : [0, ∞) → R are continuously differentiable. Applying the “chain

rule,” the time derivative of r in I can be computed as follows

dr (t)  d
 = [r x (t)X + r y (t)Y + r z (t)Z ]
dt I dt
dr x (t) dr y (t) dr z (t) dX dY dZ
= X+ Y+ Z + r x (t) + r y (t) + r z (t)
dt dt dt dt dt dt
dr x (t) dr y (t) dr z (t)
= X+ Y+ Z, t ≥ 0. (1.16)
dt dt dt

6 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

dr (t) 
Note that is expressed in the reference frame I. Next, we introduce the
dt I
notion of angular velocity. This tool allows computing the time derivative of vectors
which components are known in a reference frame that varies in time.

Definition 1.9 (Angular velocity) Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal refer-

ence frame centered at O ∈ R3 and J = {P(·); x(·), y(·), z(·)} be an orthonormal
reference frame centered at P : [0, ∞) → R3 , where x, y, z : [0, ∞) → R3 are con-
tinuously differentiable. Then, the angular velocity of J with respect to I is defined
as
  
I J dy T (t)  dz T (t)  d x T (t) 
ω (t)  z(t)x(t) + x(t)y(t) + y(t)z(t), t ≥ 0.
dt I dt I dt I
(1.17)

Classic textbooks in dynamics define the angular velocity as the instantaneous

rate of change due to an infinitesimal rotation; for details, [4, Chap. 2], [17, Chap.
2], and [49, Chap. 1].

Remark 1.2 The angular velocity of the reference frame J with respect to I is
expressed in the reference frame J.

The relevance of Remark 1.2 can be appreciated considering the following appli-
cation. Let O be a point fixed in space, and X, Y, Z be orthonormal vectors fixed in
space. Let J = {P(·); x(·), y(·), z(·)} be an orthonormal reference frame fixed with
an aircraft, that is, let P(·) be a point fixed in the aircraft, and x(·), y(·), z(·) be three
orthonormal vectors that are fixed with the aircraft. The aircraft angular velocity with
respect to an inertial reference frame I, that is, I ωJ (·), is measured by the gyroscopes
installed on the aircraft and is expressed in the reference frame J.
It follows from (1.17) that to define the angular velocity of the reference frame
J with respect to the reference frame I, it is irrelevant whether the axes of I are
functions of time or not; the notion of angular velocity regards the relative motion of
two reference frames. Next, we discuss a key application of angular velocities, that
is, we compute the time derivative of a vector fixed in a moving reference frame. For
the proof of this result, given x ∈ R3 and y ∈ R3 , we denote by x y a dyadic, that is,
a matrix such that z T x y = z T (x y) for any z ∈ R3 [26, p. 67].

Theorem 1.2 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered at

O ∈ R3 and J = {P(·); x(·), y(·), z(·)} be an orthonormal reference frame centered
at P : [0, ∞) → R3 , where x, y, z : [0, ∞) → R3 are continuously differentiable.
Let
r (t) = r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t), t ≥ 0, (1.18)

where r x , r y , r z ∈ R are constants. Then,


dr (t)   ×
 = I ωJ (t) v(t), t ≥ 0, (1.19)
dt I

www.ebook3000.com
1.3 The First Derivative of a Vector with Respect to Time 7

where I ωJ (t) denotes the angular velocity of J with respect to I.

Proof It follows from the “chain rule” that

 
dr (t)  d 
 = [r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t)]
dt I dt I
  
dr x dr y dr z d x(t)  dy(t)  dz(t) 
= x(t) + y(t) + z(t) + r x + ry + rz
dt dt dt dt I dt I dt I
  
d x(t)  dy(t)  dz(t) 
= rx  + ry  + rz , v(0) = v0 , t ≥ 0.
dt I dt I dt I
(1.20)

Next, it follows from Definition 1.9 that

  
I × dy T (t)  × dz T (t)  × d x T (t) 
ωJ (t) x(t) = z(t)x (t)x(t) + x(t)y (t)x(t) + y(t)z × (t)x(t)
dt I dt I dt I
 
dz T (t)  × d x T (t) 
= x(t)y (t)x(t) + y(t)z × (t)x(t)
dt I dt I
 
dz T (t)  d x T (t) 
=− x(t)z(t) + y(t)y(t), t ≥ 0. (1.21)
dt I dt I

Since x T (t)x(t) = 1, applying the “chain rule” it follows that

 
d T d[x T (t)x(t)]  d x T (t) 
0= [x (t)x(t)] =  = 2 x(t), t ≥ 0, (1.22)
dt dt I dt I

that is, 
d x T (t) 
0= x(t), t ≥ 0. (1.23)
dt I

Similarly, since z T (t)x(t) = 0, applying the “chain rule” it follows that

  
d T d[z T (t)x(t)]  dz T (t)  d x(t) 
0= [z (t)x(t)] =  = x(t) + z T
(t) , t ≥ 0,
dt dt I dt I dt I
(1.24)

that is,  
dz T (t)  d x(t) 
− x(t) = z T
(t) , t ≥ 0. (1.25)
dt I dt I
8 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

Now, it follows from (1.21), (1.23), and (1.25) that

 
I J
× dz T (t)  d x T (t) 
ω (t) x(t) = 0 − x(t)z(t) + y(t)y(t)
dt I dt I
  
d x T (t)  d x T (t)  d x T (t) 
= x(t)x(t) + y(t)y(t) + z(t)z(t)
dt I dt I dt I

d x T (t) 
= [x(t)x(t) + y(t)y(t) + z(t)z(t)] , t ≥ 0. (1.26)
dt I

Since x(t), y(t), and z(t), t ≥ 0, are mutually orthogonal unit vectors, it holds that
[26, p. 67]

[x(t)x(t) + y(t)y(t) + z(t)z(t)] = [X X + Y Y + Z Z ] , t ≥ 0, (1.27)

and hence

I J
× d x T (t) 
ω (t) x(t) = [x(t)x(t) + y(t)y(t) + z(t)z(t)]
dt I

d x T (t) 
= [X X + Y Y + Z Z ]
dt I
  
d x T (t)  d x T (t)  d x T (t) 
= XX + YY + ZZ
dt I dt I dt I

d x(t) 
= , t ≥ 0. (1.28)
dt I

Similarly,
 
I J
× dy(t)  I J
× dz(t) 
ω (t) y(t) = , ω (t) z(t) = , t ≥ 0. (1.29)
dt I dt I

Therefore, it follows from (1.20) that

   
dr (t)  d x(t)  dy(t)  dz(t) 
= rx + ry + rz ,
dt I dt I dt I dt I
 ×  ×  ×
= r x I ωJ (t) x(t) + r y I ωJ (t) y(t) + r z I ωJ (t) z(t)
 ×  ×  ×
= I ωJ (t) r x x(t) + I ωJ (t) r y y(t) + I ωJ (t) r z z(t)
 ×  
= I ωJ (t) r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t)
 ×
= I ωJ (t) r (t), t ≥ 0, (1.30)

which concludes the proof. 

www.ebook3000.com
1.3 The First Derivative of a Vector with Respect to Time 9

In Example 1.1, the components of r (·) are expressed in the reference frame I,
whereas in Theorem 1.2 the components of r (·) are known in J.
Remark 1.3 Equation (1.19) provides the derivative of r (·) with respect to the refer-
ence frame I expressed in the reference frame J.
The next result extends Theorem 1.2 to the case of r (·) not fixed in J. For the state-
ment of the next result, let J = {P(·); x(·), y(·), z(·)} be an orthonormal reference
frame centered at P : [0, ∞) → R3 , where x, y, z : [0, ∞) → R3 are continuously
differentiable, and

dr (t)  dr x (t) dr y (t) dr z (t)
  x(t) + y(t) + z(t), t ≥ 0, (1.31)
dt J dt dt dt

represents the time derivatives with respect to J of

r (t) = r x (t)x(t) + r y (t)y(t) + r z (t)z(t). (1.32)

Theorem 1.3 Consider the orthonormal reference frames I = {O; X, Y, Z } and J =

{P(·); x(·), y(·), z(·)}. If r : [0, ∞) → R3 is continuously differentiable, then
 
dr (t)  dr (t)   ×
 =  + I ωJ (t) r (t), t ≥ 0, (1.33)
dt I dt J

where I ωJ (t) denotes the angular velocity of J with respect to I.

Proof It follows from the “chain rule” and Theorem 1.2 that
 
dr (t)  d 

= [r (t)x(t) + r (t)y(t) + r (t)z(t)]
dt I 
x y z
dt I
  
d  d  d 
= [r x (t)x(t)] + [r y (t)y(t)] + [r z (t)z(t)]
dt I dt I dt I
dr x (t) dr y (t) dr z (t)
= x(t) + y(t) + z(t)
dt  dt dt 
d x(t)  dy(t)  dz(t) 
+ r x (t) + r (t) + r (t)
dt I dt I dt I
y z
    ×  ×
dr (t)  ×
=  + r x (t) I ωJ (t) x(t) + r y (t) I ωJ (t) y(t) + r z (t) I ωJ (t) z(t)
dt J
  ×
dr (t) 
=  + I ωJ (t) [r x (t)x(t) + r y (t)y(t) + r z (t)z(t)], t ≥ 0, (1.34)
dt J

which concludes the proof. 

Alternative proofs of Theorem 1.3 can be found in [17, Chap. 2], [4, Chap. 1], and
[49, Chap. 1], where the notion of angular velocity, defined as the time rate of change
of an infinitesimal rotation, is exploited. These references provide also numerous
illustrative examples to better comprehend Theorem 1.3 and its applications.
10 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

Remark 1.4 Equation (1.33) provides the derivative of r (·) with respect to the refer-
ence frame I expressed in the reference frame J.
The next result allows us to compute the angular velocities using auxiliary refer-
ence frames.
Theorem 1.4 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered
at O ∈ R3 , J = {P(·); x(·), y(·), z(·)} be an orthonormal reference frame centered
at P : [0, ∞) → R3 , and J = {P (·); x (·), y (·), z (·)} be an orthonormal refer-
ence frame centered at P : [0, ∞) → R3 , where x, y, z, x , y , z : [0, ∞) → R3
are continuously differentiable. Then,
I
ωJ (t) = I ωJ (t) + J ωJ (t), (1.35)

for all t ≥ 0.
Proof It follows from Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 that for all r (t) = r x x(t) + r y y(t) +
r z z(t), where r x , r y , r z ∈ R are constant,

dr (t)   ×
= I ωJ (t) r (t), t ≥ 0, (1.36)
dt I
  ×
dr (t) 
 = J ωJ (t) r (t), (1.37)
dt J
   ×
dr (t)  dr (t)  I J
= + ω (t) r (t). (1.38)
dt I dt J

Hence,
I ×  ×  ×
ωJ (t) r (t) = J
ωJ (t) r (t) + I
ωJ (t) r (t), t ≥ 0, (1.39)

that is,
I
ωJ (t) = J ωJ (t) + I ωJ (t), t ≥ 0, (1.40)

which proves the result. 

1.4 Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotations

In this section, we introduce Tait–Bryan angles, which provide an intuitive framework

to describe the rotation of reference frames. In Sect. 1.5, we discuss an alternative,
more efficient, but less intuitive approach to the problem of describing rotations of
reference frames, which is based on Euler parameters. It is worth to mention that
there exist additional techniques to describe rotations, several of which are discussed
in the survey paper [44].

www.ebook3000.com
1.4 Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotations 11

1.4.1 Tait–Bryan Angles

In the following, we provide an intuitive definition of rotations and Tait–Bryan angles;

a formal mathematical definition is provided in Sect. 1.4.2. Let I = {O; X, Y, Z }
and J = {O; x, y, z} be orthonormal reference frames centered at O ∈ R3 . In order
to describe the orientation of J with respect to I, one can assume without loss of
generality that initially both reference frames coincide and then I is transformed
applying a sequence of rotations about the axes of J. In this brief, we consider the
following rotation sequence: we rotate I about the z axis of an angle ψ, then we
rotate I about the y axis of an angle θ , and finally we rotate I about the x axis of an
angle φ.
The angles ψ, θ , and φ are the Tait–Bryan angles and, more specifically, ψ is the
yaw angle, θ is the pitch angle, and φ is the roll angle. This sequence of rotations is
known as the 3-2-1 rotation sequence, since the first rotation occurs about the third
axis of J, the second rotation occurs about the second axis of J, and the third rotation
occurs about the first axis of J.
Remark 1.5 Consider the orthonormal reference frame I = {O; X, Y, Z } fixed in
space and the orthonormal reference frame J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)}, where x, y, z :
[0, ∞) → R3 . Then, applying a 3-2-1 rotation sequence, one captures the orientation
of J with respect to I by describing the apparent motion of I with respect to J.
The 3-2-1 rotation sequence is quite common in aeronautical applications, since
it allows describing the attitude of an aircraft in space as a function of the rotations
about the axes of the reference frame J, which is rigidly attached to the aircraft.
The 3-2-1 sequence is not the only possible one. For instance, applying the 3-1-2
rotation sequence, the first rotation occurs about the third axis of J, the second rotation
occurs about the first axis of J, and the third rotation occurs about the second axis of
J. However, given the orthonormal reference frames I and J, the Tait–Bryan angles
for a 3-2-1 rotation sequence are different than the Tait–Bryan angles for a 3-1-2
sequence.
It is common practice in dynamics to describe the relative attitude of two reference
frames using a different convention. Specifically, rotations are assumed to occur about
the axes of the reference frames generated by each rotation; for details, see [4, p.
100].
In this brief, we assume that ψ ∈ [0, 2π ) and φ ∈ [0, 2π ). In fact, if ψ ∈ R, then
both ψ and ψ + 2kπ , k ∈ Z, capture the same rotation, which may lead to ambi-
guities. The same reasoning applies to φ. Moreover, in order to avoid trivial and
pathological cases in the use of Tait–Bryan angles, we make the following assump-
tion.
Assumption 1.10 For any rotation sequence, two rotations cannot occur about the
same axis.
This assumption and the fact that two distinct pitch angles cannot capture the
same rotation imply that θ ∈ − π2 , π2 . In fact, if |θ | = π2 , then the first and the third
rotation in a 3-2-1 rotation sequence occur about the same axis.
12 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

1.4.2 Rotations of Reference Frames and Vectors

Given ψ ∈ [0, 2π ), θ ∈ − π2 , π2 , φ ∈ [0, 2π ), and an orthonormal reference frame

I = {O; X, Y, Z }, define

[x, y, z]  R321 (ψ, θ, φ)[X, Y, Z ], (1.41)

where

R321 (ψ, θ, φ)  Φ T (φ)Θ T (θ )Ψ T (ψ) (1.42)

and
⎡ ⎤
cos ψ − sin ψ 0
Ψ (ψ)  ⎣ sin ψ cos ψ 0⎦ , (1.43)
0 0 1
⎡ ⎤
cos θ 0 sin θ
Θ(θ )  ⎣ 0 1 0 ⎦ , (1.44)
− sin θ 0 cos θ
⎡ ⎤
1 0 0
Φ(φ)  ⎣0 cos φ − sin φ ⎦ . (1.45)
0 sin φ cos φ

Remarkably, x, y, and z in (1.41) are expressed in the reference frame I.

Exercise 1.9 Prove that Ψ (·), Θ(·), and Φ(·) given by (1.43), (1.44), and (1.45) are
rotation matrices, that is,

Ψ −1 (ψ) = Ψ T (ψ), Θ −1 (θ ) = Θ T (θ ), Φ −1 (φ) = Φ T (φ), (1.46)

for all ψ ∈ [0, 2π ), θ ∈ − π2 , π2 , and φ ∈ [0, 2π ), and

det(Ψ (ψ)) = 1, det(Θ(θ )) = 1, det(Φ(φ)) = 1. (1.47)

Prove also that R321 (·) is a rotation matrix. Hint: Recall Exercise A.5. 

For details on orthogonal and rotation matrices, refer to Sect. A.6.2. In light of
Exercise 1.9, we define (1.43)–(1.45) as the yaw, pitch, and roll rotation matrices,
respectively. The next result is quite relevant, since it proves that x, y, and z in (1.41)
can be used to form an orthonormal reference frame.

Theorem 1.5 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered at

O. Then, J = {O; x, y, z}, where x, y, z satisfy (1.41), is an orthonormal reference
frame centered at O.

www.ebook3000.com
1.4 Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotations 13

Proof It follows from Theorem A.6 that

det (R321 (ψ, θ, φ)[X, Y, Z ]) = det (R321 (ψ, θ, φ)) det ([X, Y, Z ]) , t ≥ 0,
(1.48)
and it follows from Remark 1.1 that det ([X, Y, Z ]) = 0. Furthermore, it follows from
Exercise 1.9 that det (R321 (ψ, θ, φ)) = 1. Therefore, it follows from (1.41) that

det ([x, y, z]) = 0, (1.49)

which implies that {x, y, z} is a basis of R3 .

Next, note that
−1
x T y = X T R321
T
R321 Y = X T R321 R321 Y = X T Y = 0 (1.50)

and similarly x T z = 0, and y T z = 0. Therefore, {x, y, z} is a normal basis of R3 .

Finally,
x2 = x T x = X T R321
T
R321 X = X T X = X 2 = 1, (1.51)

and it can be proven in a similar manner that y2 = z2 = 1. Thus, J is an ortho-
normal reference frame. 

In the following, we correlate (1.42) with rotations sequences as described in

Sect. 1.4.1.

Example 1.2 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered

at O and assume, without loss of generality, that X = [1, 0, 0]T , Y = [0, 1, 0]T ,
and Z = [0, 0, 1]T . Given ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, 2π ), consider the reference frame
J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)} such that

[x(t), y(t), z(t)] = Ψ T (ψ(t))[X, Y, Z ], t ≥ 0, (1.52)

where Ψ (·) is given by (1.43).

It follows from (1.52) that
⎡ ⎤
cos ψ(t)
x(t) = Ψ T (ψ(t))X = ⎣− sin ψ(t)⎦ , t ≥ 0, (1.53)
0
⎡ ⎤
sin ψ(t)
y(t) = Ψ T (ψ(t))Y = ⎣cos ψ(t)⎦ , (1.54)
0
z(t) = Ψ T (ψ(t))Z = Z , (1.55)

which imply that the axes X , Y , and Z are obtained from x(·), y(·), and z(·), respec-
tively, through a rotation about the axis z(·) of an angle ψ(·); see Fig. 1.1. As discussed
14 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

Fig. 1.1 The reference y(t)

frame I is obtained from the Y
reference frame J through a
rotation of an angle ψ(t)
about the z axis
X
cos ψ(t)
ψ(t)
O x(t)
− sin ψ(t)

in Remark 1.5 and as can be observed from Fig. 1.1, (1.52) captures the apparent rota-
tion about z(t) of the reference frame I, which is fixed in space, with respect to the
moving reference frame J of an angle ψ(t). Alternatively, (1.52) captures the actual
rotation of J about z(t) of an angle −ψ(t). 

Exercise 1.10 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered at

O. Given θ : [0, ∞) → − π2 , π2 , consider the reference frame J = {O; x(t), y(t),
z(t)} such that

[x(t), y(t), z(t)] = Θ T (θ (t))[X, Y, Z ], t ≥ 0, (1.56)

where Θ(·) is given by (1.44). Show that X , Y , and Z are obtained from x(·), y(·),
and z(·), respectively, through a rotation about the axis y(·) of an angle θ (·). 

Exercise 1.11 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } be an orthonormal reference frame centered at

O. Given φ : [0, ∞) → [0, 2π ), consider the reference frame J = {O; x(t), y(t),
z(t)} such that

[x(t), y(t), z(t)] = Φ T (φ(t))[X, Y, Z ], t ≥ 0, (1.57)

where Φ(·) is given by (1.45). Show that X , Y , and Z are obtained from x(·), y(·),
and z(·), respectively, through a rotation about the axis x(·) of an angle φ(·). 

It follows from Example 1.2 and Exercises 1.10 and 1.11 that if

[x(t), y(t), z(t)] = R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t))[X, Y, Z ], t ≥ 0, (1.58)

where

R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) = Φ T (φ(t))Θ T (θ (t))Ψ T (ψ(t)), (1.59)

www.ebook3000.com
1.4 Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotations 15

ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, 2π ), θ : [0, ∞) → − π2 , π2 , and φ : [0, ∞) → [0, 2π ), then the

attitude of J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)} with respect to I = {O; X, Y, Z } is captured by
a 3-2-1 rotation sequence. In fact, Ψ T (ψ(t))[X, Y, Z ] implies that the axes X , Y ,
and Z are obtained from x(t), y(t), and z(t), respectively, t ≥ 0, through a rota-
tion about the axis z(t) of an angle ψ(t). Moreover, Θ T (θ (t))Ψ T (ψ(t))[X, Y, Z ]
implies that Ψ T (ψ(t))X , Ψ T (ψ(t))Y , and Ψ T (ψ(t))Z are obtained from x(t),
y(t), and z(t), respectively, through a rotation about y(t) of an angle θ (t). Lastly,
Φ T (φ(t))Θ T (θ (t))Ψ T (ψ(t))[X, Y, Z ] implies that Θ T (θ (t))Ψ T (ψ(t))X , Θ T (θ (t))
Ψ T (ψ(t))Y , and Θ T (θ (t))Ψ T (ψ(t))Z are obtained from x(t), y(t), and z(t), respec-
tively, through a rotation about x(t) of an angle φ(t).

1.4.3 Properties of the Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotation

Matrices

It follows from Exercise 1.9 that R321 (·), defined in (1.42), is a rotation matrix.
Hence, it follows from Theorem A.14 that an eigenvalue of R321 (·) is equal to one,
that is, 1 ∈ spec(R321 (ψ, θ, φ)), for all ψ ∈ [0, 2π ), θ ∈ − π2 , π2 , and φ ∈ [0, 2π ).
Moreover, it follows from Theorem A.12 that there exists p ∈ R3 such that

R321 (ψ, θ, φ) p = p. (1.60)

This vector p is not affected by the rotation captured by R321 (·) and hence character-
izes the subspace of all vectors that are transformed by the R321 (·) into themselves.

Definition 1.11 (Rotation axis) Consider the rotation matrix R321 (·) defined in
(1.42). The rotation axis of R321 (·) is the eigenvector p ∈ R3 of R321 (·) associated
to the unit eigenvalue of R321 (·) such that  p = 1.

Note that if ψ(·), θ (·), and φ(·) are functions of time, then R321 (·) is a function
of time; for details, see (1.59). Consequently, also the rotation axis p(·) varies with
time.
In the following, we discuss the role of rotation matrices in the problem of express-
ing vectors in different reference frames. The first of these results establishes a rela-
tion between rotating reference frames and constant vectors.

Theorem 1.6 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } and J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)} be orthonormal
reference frames centered at O, such that (1.58) is satisfied. Then,

r = r X X + rY Y + r Z Z

can be expressed in the reference frame J as

16 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics
⎡ T ⎤
T
R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) (r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ) X
⎢ T T ⎥
r (t) = ⎣ R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) (r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ) Y ⎦ , t ≥ 0. (1.61)
 T T
R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) (r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ) Z

Proof It follows from Exercise 1.8 and (1.41) that r can be expressed in the reference
frame J as

r (t) = [r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ]T x(t)x(t) + [r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ]T y(t)y(t)

+ [r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ]T z(t)z(t)
= [r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ]T R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t))X x(t)
+ [r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ]T R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t))Y y(t)
+ [r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ]T R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t))Z z(t)
 T T
= R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) (r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ) X x(t)
 T T
+ R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) (r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ) Y y(t)
 T T
+ R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) (r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ) Z z(t), t ≥ 0,
(1.62)

which implies (1.61). 

It follows from Theorem 1.6 that the components of

T
R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t))(r X X + rY Y + r Z Z ), t ≥ 0,

in the reference frame I are the components of r (t), expressed in the reference frame
J. It is crucial to note that the components of v in the reference frame J vary with
t because the basis vectors x(t), y(t), and z(t) vary with t. The following result
concerns the effect of the rotation of J with respect to I on a vector r that is constant
in J.

Exercise 1.12 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } and J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)} be orthonormal
reference frames centered at O, such that (1.58) is satisfied. Prove that

r (t) = r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t), t ≥ 0, (1.63)

can be expressed in the reference frame I as

⎡ T ⎤
R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t) x(t)
⎢  ⎥
r (t) = ⎣ R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t) T y(t)⎦ . (1.64)
 T
R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t)) r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t) z(t)

www.ebook3000.com
1.4 Tait–Bryan Angles and Rotations 17

It follows from Exercise 1.12 that the components of

R321 (ψ(t), θ (t), φ(t))[r x x(t) + r y y(t) + r z z(t)], t ≥ 0,

in the reference frame J are the components of r (t), expressed in the reference frame
I. Theorem 1.6 and Exercise 1.12 show the central role of of the rotation matrix
R321 (·) in the problem of expressing vectors in different reference frames.
Numerous examples on the applications of Theorem 1.6 and Exercise 1.12 can be
found in the literature on dynamics. For instance, refer to [4, Chap. 2], [17, Chap.
2], and [49, Chap. 1].
Consider the rotating reference frames I and J. In the following, we prove some
relations between the angular velocity I ωJ (·) and the time derivatives of the Tait–
Bryan angles ψ(·), θ (·), φ(·). To this goal, it is key to recall that a 3-2-1 rotation
sequence captures the apparent rotation of the fixed reference frame I with respect
to the moving reference frame J.

Example 1.3 Let the attitude of the reference frame I = {O; X (·), Y (·), Z (·)} with
respect to I = {O; X, Y, Z } be captured by the Tait–Bryan angles ψ : [0, ∞) →
[0, 2π ), θ (t) = 0, t ≥ 0, and φ(t) = 0, where ψ(·) is continuously differentiable.
Then it follows from (1.41) that

X (t) = cos ψ(t)X − sin ψ(t)Y, (1.65)

Y (t) = sin ψ(t)X + cos ψ(t)Y, (1.66)
Z (t) = Z . (1.67)

Consequently, it follows from Definition 1.9 that

  
I dY T (t)  d Z T (t)  d X T (t) 
ωI (t) = Z (t)X (t) + X (t)Y (t) + Y (t)Z (t)
dt I dt I dt I
= ψ̇(t) [cos ψ(t)X − sin ψ(t)Y ]T Z X (t) + 0 · Y (t)
+ ψ̇(t) [− sin ψ(t)X − cos ψ(t)Y ]T [sin ψ(t)X + cos ψ(t)Y ] Z (t)
= −ψ̇(t)Z , t ≥ 0. (1.68)

As discussed in Example 1.2 and in Remark 1.5, (1.65)–(1.67) capture the rotation
of the reference frame I with respect to I of an angle −ψ(·). Hence, for a positive
rotation ψ(·), it holds that
I
ωI (t) = ψ̇(t)Z , t ≥ 0. (1.69)

Equation (1.69) implies that the angular velocity due to the rotation of the reference
frame I with respect to I of an angle ψ(t), t ≥ 0, about the axis z is a vector parallel
to Z , whose magnitude is equal to ψ̇(t). 
18 1 Fundamentals of Rigid Body Dynamics

Exercise 1.13 Let the attitude of the reference frame I = {O; X (·), Y (·), Z (·)}
with respect to I = {O; X , Y , Z } be captured by the Tait–Bryan angles
θ : [0, ∞) → − π2 , π2 , ψ(t) = 0, t ≥ 0, and φ(t) = 0, where θ (·) is continuously
differentiable. Prove that
I
ωI (t) = θ̇ (t)Y (t), t ≥ 0. (1.70)

Exercise 1.14 Let the attitude of the reference frame J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)} with
respect to I = {O; X , Y , Z } be captured by the Tait–Bryan angles φ : [0, ∞) →
[0, 2π ), ψ(t) = 0, t ≥ 0, and θ (t) = 0, where φ(·) is continuously differentiable.
Prove that
I J
ω (t) = φ̇(t)x(t), t ≥ 0. (1.71)

The next result is quite relevant for aerospace applications as it expresses the
angular velocity of a moving reference frame as a function of the time derivatives of
the Tait–Bryan angles.

Theorem 1.7 Let I = {O; X, Y, Z } and J = {O; x(·), y(·), z(·)} be orthonormal
reference frames centered at O. If (1.58) is satisfied by the continuously differentiable
functions ψ(·), θ (·), and φ(·), then
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
1 0 − sin θ (t) φ̇(t)
ω (t) = ⎣0 cos φ(t) cos θ (t) sin φ(t) ⎦ ⎣ θ̇ (t) ⎦ ,
I J
t ≥ 0, (1.72)
0 − sin φ(t) cos θ (t) cos φ(t) ψ̇(t)

Proof By proceeding as in Example 1.3 and Exercises 1.13 and 1.14, introduce
the auxiliary orthonormal reference frames I = {O; X (·), Y (·), Z (·)} and I =
{O; X (·), Y (·), Z (·)}, where X , Y , Z , X , Y , Z : [0, ∞) → R3 are continu-
ously differentiable. The reference frame I is obtained from I through a rotation of
ψ(·) about the z axis, whereas I is obtained from I through a rotation of θ (·) about
the y axis.
It follows from Theorem 1.4 that
I
ωJ (t) = I ωI (t) + I ωI (t) + I ωJ (t) = ψ̇(t)Z + θ̇ (t)Y (t) + φ̇(t)x(t), t ≥ 0,
(1.73)
and it follows from Example 1.2 and Exercises 1.10 and 1.11 that

www.ebook3000.com
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
extraordinary assemblies, but attributed them to letters received from
London.
The ‘Gentlemen of the Road,’ loyal robbers as they
ON
were, were despatched at Tyburn, in spite of their HOUNSLOW
Hanoverian principles. Those principles were HEATH.
manifested by a couple of highwaymen who stopped
a carriage on Hounslow Heath, the inmates of which, four young
children and two ladies, were on the way from Epsom to Cliefden.
The highwaymen were informed that the children were Prince
George, Princess Augusta, and a younger prince and princess. The
Whig highwaymen hoped God would bless them all, and they rode
off towards another carriage coming up at a little distance. This
carriage was filled with nurses and servants of the royal children;
and the robbers stripped them of every article of value which they
carried with them. The singularity of this illustration of the times
consists in this,—that at a period when robbers abounded, and that
more highwaymen were to be found on Hounslow Heath than
elsewhere, the young members of the royal family were sent across
that dangerous heath without any protecting escort.
At the court of the Prince of Wales in London, an incident, not
without a certain significance, occurred. The Marquis of Caernarvon
presented Mr. Chandler, ‘the bookseller, outside Temple Bar,’ to the
prince. The worthy bookseller handed to the Heir Apparent three
volumes of what may be almost called ‘forbidden fruit,’ namely
‘Reports of Parliamentary Debates, from the accession of George
I.,’—an instalment of a great collection to be afterwards completed.
They were dedicated to the prince by his permission,—a
condescension which, no doubt, was suspected of being tainted by
Jacobitism. An incident of another description may have gratified a
rancorous Jacobite or two. The Jenny Diver who, in her youth, had
nearly stolen Atterbury’s ring from his finger, as she kissed his hand,
came now, in maturer years, to the end of her career at Tyburn. With
nineteen others of both sexes, she journeyed to the gallows. The
nineteen were divided into half a dozen carts, but Hanoverian Jenny
went in a mourning coach accompanied by a chaplain, and escorted
by four soldiers of the footguards. An hour later, a ghastly equality
shrouded the whole of the strangled score.
Although men’s minds were chiefly occupied in
TORIES NOT
1742 with the withdrawal of Walpole from office and JACOBITES.
public life, and the Chevalier and his projects seemed
well-nigh forgotten, these projects were kept in view by public men.
Pulteney said in the House that he had himself told the king, the
Tories were not universally Jacobites, but that, treating them as if
they were, would certainly make them so. Aye, rejoined Sir Everard
Digby, just as in Charles I.’s time, the advisers of arbitrary measures
against the Puritans only increased the numbers of those people.
Fear of the designs of the Jacobite faction led to an application to the
Commons for a money grant in aid of the bringing over certain
bodies of troops in Ireland, to England. It was in the course of this
debate that Winnington described the exact position of Jacobites and
Jacobitism, at the moment he was speaking:—
‘There are still many gentlemen of figure and
CONDITION
fortune among us who openly profess their OF PARTIES.
attachment to the Pretender. There is a sort of
enthusiastic spirit of disaffection that still prevails among the vulgar;
and there is too great a number of men of all ranks and conditions
who now seem to be true friends to the Protestant Succession who
would declare themselves otherwise, if they thought they could do so
without running any great or unequal risk. These considerations shall
always make me jealous of the Jacobite party’s getting any
opportunity to rebel, and this they have always thought they had, and
always will think they have, when they see the nation destitute of
troops, for which reason, I shall always be for keeping in the island
such a number of regular troops as may be sufficient for awing them
into obedience.... The danger of an invasion from abroad, with the
Pretender at the head of it, is equally to be apprehended.’ Alluding to
Spain with whom we were at war, Mr. Winnington said: ‘She will use
every art that can be thought of for throwing into this island 8 or
10,000 men of her best troops, with the Pretender and some of his
adherents at their head.’ Mr. Carew believed that there were very
few men in England who would join the Pretender, if he invaded it,
and that in such case he would speedily be overwhelmed. The
motion was, however, successful by 280 to 269.
The popularity of the Prince of Wales was
IN LEICESTER
manifested in a singular way this year. It was known FIELDS.
that he was about to take up his residence in
Leicester Fields. The place was in some degree beautified for the
occasion, and the grass in the centre was enclosed by a neat
wooden railing. On the first night of the arrival of the Prince and his
family, the congratulating mob pulled down the rails, piled them up in
front of Leicester House, and kindled a bonfire which nearly ignited
the doors of the mansion. The Prince, however, sent out his thanks
to the mob for their civility, and he promised to adorn the enclosure
with a statue of the king his father—a promise which he failed to
keep, and probably never meant to do so. A statue of George I.,
brought from Canons, the seat of the Duke of Chandos, was put up
there in 1748.
The new sect of Methodists was now creating suspicion. Some
friends of the Happy Establishment looked upon them with even
more aversion than they bestowed on the Jacobites. At the
execution of two criminals, the Prince of Wales sent one of his
chaplains (Mr. Howard) to afford them spiritual comfort. But, they
were also attended by a Mr. Simms, who, says the ‘Whitehall
Evening Post,’ ‘was formerly a butcher, but lately a strict follower of
the modern Methodists.’ The orthodox ‘Post’ adds:—‘By the
Influence of whose Doctrine these hardened Wretches were brought
to Penitence, we need not point out to our Readers.’
It would seem that the term ‘Prime Minister’ was AWAKING OF
first applied to Walpole, and in a reproachful sense. JACOBITES.
Speaking in the House, in 1741, he said of his
opponents: ‘Having invested me with a kind of mock dignity, and
styled me a Prime Minister, they impute to me an unpardonable
abuse of that chimerical authority, which only they created and
conferred.’ Under the Earl of Wilmington as First Lord of the
Treasury the better times, foretold by the ex-Prime Minister’s
enemies, failed to come to pass. Meanwhile, every significant
incident in Parliament, every detail of the domestic life of the king,
was regularly transmitted from London to the Chevalier, at Rome.
One of the Parliamentary incidents of the year was the appointment
of the Duke of Argyle to the offices of Master-General of the
Ordnance, and Commander-in-chief of the Forces, offices which he
resigned, a month later, because of the exclusion of Tories from
power, but especially because of the refusal to admit the Jacobite,
Sir John Hynde Cotton, to a place in the Government. ‘The
Pretender and all that set,’ wrote Mann, at Florence, to Horace
Walpole, ‘are in high spirits and flatter themselves more than ever. I
don’t know but they have reason. I confess to you I should be very
sorry to see the Duke of Argyle with an army; then, might the
Pretender, in my opinion, triumph.’
The Jacobites found, perhaps, unconscious CHESTERFIEL
supporters of their cause in the writers who D’S OPINIONS.
energetically denounced the reigning monarch’s
partiality for Hanover, at the cost of England. Atterbury himself could
not have turned this subject more profitably to the cause of the
Chevalier than Chesterfield did in the first number of ‘Old England’
(Feb. 5th, 1743):—‘I am entirely persuaded that in the words, “our
present happy establishment,” the happiness meant there is that of
the subjects; and that if the “establishment” should make the Prince
happy, and the subjects otherwise, it would be very justly termed
“our present unhappy establishment.” I apprehend the nation did not
think James unworthy of the Crown, merely that he might make way
for the Prince of Orange; nor can I conceive that they ever precluded
themselves from dealing by King William in the same manner as
they had done by King James, if he had done as much to deserve
such a treatment. Neither can I in all my search find that when the
Crown was settled in an hereditary line upon the present Royal
Family, the people of Great Britain ever signed any formal instrument
of recantation by which they expressed their sorrow and repentance
of what they had done against King James, and protested that they
would never do so by any future Prince, though reduced to the same
melancholy necessity.’ The ‘sacred right of insurrection’ was here
maintained, as fully as any Jacobite could have maintained it,
against a family whose possession of the Crown of England was not
by right of blood, but because the nation ‘which gave the crown
looked for the greatest amount of happiness from the recipients.’ In a
subsequent number Chesterfield somewhat modified this tone, but
without mutilating its sense. If he spoke treason, he said it should be
treason within the law. He was loyal to the reigning family because
he thought he could live free under it, and hoped that ‘we are
determined to live free.’
Lord Chesterfield spoke in similar sense and spirit
KING AND
in the various fiery debates upon keeping Hanoverian ELECTOR.
troops in British pay, and that for Hanoverian interests
solely, to further which the British people were taxed. It was even
doubted whether the Elector of Hanover had any right to appear at
the head of a British army, where such interests alone were
concerned. Mr. Murray (afterwards Lord Mansfield) in the Commons
denounced such sentiments as republican and Jacobitical. Lord
Chesterfield, in a later discussion in the Lords, said: ‘It is said of a
noble Lord in a late reign, that he turned Roman Catholic in order to
overrule a Roman Catholic king then upon our throne. I hope we
have not at present any reason to suspect that any British subject is
now with the same view turned Hanoverian. But as such a thing is
possible, as wolves sometimes appear “in sheeps” clothing, those
who are truly jealous of our present happy establishment will always
have a jealousy of a British Minister that savours too strong of the
Hanoverian.’
A most unpleasant incident of the year was connected with two
anonymous letters addressed to the Speaker of the House of
Commons and Lord Carteret, in which the writer, ‘Wat Tyler,’
informed them that if the latter brought in Hanoverian troops that
winter, there were two hundred men bound by oath who would tear
him, and all who voted with him, limb from limb. The most significant
incident of all, however, remains to be told.
Early after the Jacobite rebellion of 1715, a force HIGHLAND
consisting of six companies of Highlanders was REGIMENT IN
formed, for the purpose of causing the peace to be LONDON.
kept in the northern portion of Scotland. In 1739, this
force, known as the Black Watch, was embodied as a regiment,
which, from its commander, was named ‘Lord Sempill’s.’ An idea
prevailed among the men that they were embodied for home service
only. In 1743 the regiment was ordered to London, for the purpose of
joining the actively employed British army. The scene of this actively
employed army was then in Germany. Sempill’s regiment marched to
London with unconcealed aversion. They were in some degree
calmed by assurances from their officers that the march to London
was in order that the king might gratify his royal wish to review the
regiment in person. Their pride was gratified; they reached Highgate
in good order, and they were there encamped. The camp was visited
by thousands of Londoners, who praised the good discipline and
quiet disposition of the Highlanders. Among the most assiduous,
insinuating, and seductive of the visitors were the London Jacobites.
When the men heard that the king had left London for his army on
the Continent, and that they were under orders to follow, their pride
was wounded; and the Jacobites took care to inflame the wound and
aggravate both the alleged slight and the anger of the offended
soldiery. A review of Sempill’s regiment on the king’s birthday, 14th
May 1743, by General Wade, on Finchley Common, was more
gratifying to the spectators than to the men. The papers describe the
Highlanders as making ‘a very handsome appearance. They went
through their exercises and firing with the utmost exactness. The
novelty of the sight drew together the greatest concourse of people
ever seen on such an occasion.’
Four days later, orders came for the troops to DESERTION
embark on the Thames. On that day about a hundred OF THE MEN.
and fifty of the men failed to answer the morning roll
call. They had not only disappeared, but with them their arms and
several rounds of ball cartridge. ‘They did not care to go,’ says
Walpole, in one of his May letters, ‘where it would not be equivocal
for what King they fought.’ Sir Robert Munro, their Lieutenant-
Colonel, before their leaving Scotland, asked some of the Ministry,
‘But suppose there should be any rebellion in Scotland, what should
we do for these eight hundred men?’ It was answered, ‘Why, there
would be eight hundred fewer rebels there!’ They were evidently
mistrusted. The deserters, who justified the mistrust, had conceived
that the review, for which they had marched to London, being over,
they had a right to march back again. They concerted together, kept
their own secret, were not betrayed by comrades who looked upon
their military duty in another light, and they quietly left the camp at
Highgate in the dead of night. They were under the command of a
fine stalwart corporal named Macpherson, the corporal’s brother, and
an intelligent private, Shaw. For what purpose they set out for
Scotland was probably best known by the Jacobites of the
metropolis. The object must have been far more serious than simply
to return, because they conceived such action was within the limits
of their legal right. This would have been the wildest folly, and the
Macphersons and their men were neither fools nor savages.
However this may be, London was in uncontrollable
MARCH OF THE
alarm, and expected a record of plunder, murder, and DESERTERS.
incendiarism along the line of march, till the retreat
was stopped and the deserters captured. On the contrary, the
Highlanders, as they proceeded northward, injured neither man,
woman, nor child—neither in person nor property. The most active
measures were taken to pursue, meet, envelope, and destroy this
most disloyal and yet much admired body. They were heard of
everywhere; were scarcely seen anywhere. The reward for catching
a single straggler was forty shillings; but there were no stragglers.
The men understood the uses of solidarity, and kept compact in body
as they were united in sentiment. Corporal Macpherson seemed to
know the country perfectly, and to have a map of it ever under his
eyes. Infantry, cavalry, volunteer mobs, and posses of constables
scoured the districts on the line of march, but could not meet with
those who were nearly successfully accomplishing this Xenophonian
retreat. Macpherson, in fact, constantly changed his line. He led his
men across country by night, always encamping in woods, by day,
behind hastily constructed defences. Sometimes they made rapid
marches by day, and took food and repose at night.
THE
On the morning of the 22nd, a Mr. Justice Creed HIGHLANDER
heard of them as being encamped near his residence, S AT OUNDLE.
about four miles from Oundle, in Northamptonshire.
Like a brave and good man, he went down to them and got
permission to address the famished and foot-sore band. He did this
with such effect, as to obtain from them a sacred promise to
surrender on condition of receiving a general pardon. Creed wrote in
camp a letter to that effect to the Duke of Montagu, Master of the
Ordnance. Macpherson undertook that the Highlanders should
remain in their quarters till an answer was received. In the meantime,
a Captain Ball, who had been despatched by General Blakeney with
a force of cavalry from the northeastern district to intercept the
march of the Highlanders, came upon them near Oundle, and
demanded their immediate and unconditional surrender. The parties
interchanged civilities. Macpherson informed the Captain that,
through Creed, they were in negotiation with the Government. The
Corporal also found means to let Creed know the exact state of
affairs. The Justice advised them to surrender and hope for the best.
Macpherson then invited the Captain to come and look at his
entrenched position in the wood, as authorising him to hold out, and
to defy any attack from Ball’s cavalry. The Captain confessed that
they were unassailable by cavalry. Then, said the Corporal, here we
will die like men, our arms in our hands. The Captain intimated that if
they did not surrender, not a man should leave the place alive. Two
of the Highlanders escorted Ball to the edge of the wood; but on the
way he convinced both that the only thing left for them was to return
unarmed to their regiment. One of these two remained with the
persuasive cavalry officer. The other returned to the little fortress in
the wood, where he laid before the corporal commander-in-chief and
the body of Highlanders the Captain’s arguments and conclusions.
This he did with such effect that the body of fugitives
MILITARY
surrendered unconditionally to General Blakeney, EXECUTION.
who disarmed them and sent them, as captured
deserters, to their old quarters at Highgate. London literally ‘turned
out,’ to see them subsequently marched down to the Tower. Their
uniforms were torn, and each man was tightly pinioned; but their
bearing was so becoming that no voice insulted them. Their
manliness was worthy of respect, and their offence was deserving of
the issue which followed on the parade ground of the Tower. Justice
was satisfied with the sacrifice of three victims. On the 22nd of July,
the whole regiment was drawn out semi-circular on the ground.
Some paces in front stood three groups of soldiers with loaded
muskets—the firing parties. Presently Macpherson, his brother, and
Shaw walked up, without fear or ostentation, but with great gravity, to
places face to face with those comrades who had been told off for
their swift destruction. As the three men were seen to kneel in
prayer, the whole regiment simultaneously, unordered, followed the
example, and prayed for their countrymen. After a brief silence, the
doomed three stood firmly upright. A rattle of musketry from the
respective firing parties rolled over the ground; and a minute or two
later a few clansmen of the Macphersons and comrades of Shaw
reverently covered their bodies, and removed them for interment
near the spot where they had perished.
The incident was not altogether apart from THREATENED
Jacobitism; nor probably was the subsequent fact, INVASION.
namely, that Lord John Murray, who afterwards was
Colonel of the regiment, had the portraits of these three men hung
up in his dining-room. The year closed with a threatening incident.
Charles Edward left Rome in December for France, in order to
accompany the expedition which was preparing in French ports for
the invasion of England, under Marshal Saxe. There can be little
doubt that the Government was well informed of the good intentions
of France, by trustworthy agents abroad.
There is a tradition, however, that the first intelligence of a plot to
restore the Stuarts was sent up to London from the Post office at
Bath. Ralph Allen (the Squire Allworthy of Fielding’s ‘Tom Jones’)
had, since the year 1720, enjoyed a grant, or farm, of all the bye-way
or cross-road letters in England and Wales, which grant he
possessed till his death, in 1764. It is said that this Ralph Allen, of
Prior Park, owed much of his large fortune to the result of his
practice of opening letters; and it is added that by opening one of
these cross-road letters he gained information of a plot for the
Jacobite invasion of England,—and this information being sent to
London, gave to its inhabitants the first announcement of an
impending rebellion. In this same month of December, as was
afterwards made known, a packet passed through the post,
addressed to Simon, Lord Fraser of Lovat, hitherto a supposed
friend of the Hanoverian dynasty. It contained matter which helped
him to the scaffold on Tower Hill,—namely, his appointment to an
important command in the Jacobite army about to be organised, and
a flattering allusion to Lovat’s worthiness to wear a ducal title.
Walpole was entitled to say, as he did:—‘We are in more confusion
than we care to own.’
There was mirth enough in the opposition papers. CONFUSION.
Their columns crackled with epigrams against the
king, court, and the Countess of Yarmouth. They were but slightly
veiled and were still less slightly pointed. There was some regret
perhaps that the reward offered by De Noailles, at Dettingen, to the
troops that should capture George II., in that battle, had only resulted
in the utter cutting to pieces of the Black Mousquetaires, who made
the attempt.
It was on the 15th of February, 1744, after there had been some
difficulty to persuade people of the impending danger, that the king
informed Parliament and the nation, that this kingdom was about to
be invaded by the French, with the design of overthrowing the
present happy establishment, and the Protestant succession, and of
restoring the Stuarts and the Romish religion. In the debates which
ensued in both Houses, all the occasional references to Jacobites
seemed to have come together in one heap. Lord Orford (Walpole)
reminded the peers how he had been calumniated and ridiculed for
repeating that the Jacobites had never ceased to plot, and that they
would one day renew their attempt to destroy the present dynasty. If
England was not ready to meet this attempt, the fault
PREPARATIONS
would be with those who were now in power. Lord .
Chesterfield still maintained that the Jacobites in the
metropolis were few, and that hostility to the Government was chiefly
maintained there by the malicious and contemptible sect of
Nonjurors. One Jacobite member in the Commons, Sir Francis
Dashwood, was audacious, at least by inuendoes. Alluding to the
harsh epithets flung at the Chevalier, he remarked that James II. had
branded as an invader and usurper that William of Orange, who was
afterwards hailed by the country as its glorious deliverer. He referred
also to the incident in Roman history of the Roman soldiers refusing
to march against foreign invaders till they had destroyed the tyranny
which reigned at Rome. The application of these remarks was easy
enough. They showed the spirit of the Jacobite party, particularly in
London. The natural result ensued, namely, a proclamation to the
justices to put in force the laws which had been framed against
Papists and Nonjurors. The former were ordered to remove to a
distance of at least ten miles from the metropolis, or to keep close
within their habitations. Those persons who refused to take the oaths
of allegiance and abjuration were to be deprived of their arms and
horses; and every attempt at rioting was to be put down by armed
force. Further, every person found corresponding with the Pretender
or his sons were pronounced to be guilty of High Treason,—which
involved forfeiture of life, title, and estates. If this seems stringent, it
must be remembered that already had there been caught and caged
in Newgate a Popish priest, who, putting in action the teaching of his
Church that it only interfered with religion,—and with morals, which
means everything else,—had, in the disguise of an imaginary
captainship, been trying to enlist men into the service of the enemy.
Then came the mutual declarations of war. That of DECLARATION
France against England accused the latter power of OF WAR.
every political enormity. That of England against
France was equally explicit,—with the special addition that France
had treacherously assisted Spain against England, when France
was openly at peace with England, and that it was now aiding and
abetting the Pretender who, through his son, was preparing to
overthrow the royal family, government, and constitution of Great
Britain.
What was the temper of the nation with regard to the present
condition of things?
No doubt there was some satisfaction felt by the Jacobite guests
over their cups at the ‘Mourning Bush’ in Aldersgate Street. This sign
was originally set up in London by Taylor, the Water Poet, at his
tavern in Phœnix Alley, Long Acre, as a token of his principles, after
the death of Charles I. He was however compelled to take it down.
Another adherent of the Stuarts, Rawlinson, who kept the ‘Mitre’ in
Fenchurch Street, put it in mourning, as a testimony of similar
opinions. Jacobite Hearne thought the ‘Mourning Mitre’ very
appropriate. ‘Rawlinson certainly did right. The honour of the mitre
was much eclipsed through the loss of so good a parent of the
Church of England. Those rogues say, this endeared him so much to
the churchmen, that he soon throve amain and got a good estate.’ It
is not to be supposed that the ‘Bush’ in Aldersgate Street was
actually craped, or sable-framed, in 1744; but the tradition was kept
up that the ‘Bush’ was in mourning, and would continue to be so, till
the Stuarts were restored.
Among the persons, on the other hand, who LETTER FROM
looked upon the threatened coming of Prince Charles HURD.
Edward as hardly amounting to a bad dream was Mr.
Hurd,—subsequently a bishop, but in February, 1744, at Cambridge,
looking forward to receive priests orders in May at the hands of Dr.
Gooch, Bishop of Norwich, in the chapel of Caius College. The news
from London was exciting, and Hurd writes to his friend, the Rev.
John Devey, on the 17th of February:—‘Nothing is talked of here but
an invasion from the French. The Chevalier is at Paris, and we are to
expect him here in a short time. Whatever there may be in this news,
it seems to have consternated the Ministry. The Tower is trebly
guarded, and so is St. James’s, and the soldiers have orders to be
ready for action at an hour’s warning. They are hasting, it seems,
from all quarters of the kingdom to London. I saw a regiment
yesterday, going through Newmarket. After all, I apprehend very little
from this terror. It seems a polite contrivance of the French to give a
diversion to our men, and keep the English out of Germany. Let me
know what is said in your part of the world.’
Lady Sarah Cowper (in the Correspondence of PUBLIC
Mrs. Delany) writes:—‘If it is true that the French FEELING.
design only to draw our troops from Flanders, and
facilitate their own conquests abroad, and that the Kingdom of
England and our present government may however be safe, I am
sure at least that the unhappy wretches already drawn into rebellion,
and more that may follow their example, must be sufferers. The
distress must fall somewhere, and all humane people must have
some share in it.’
Again, some idea of the half-frightened, half-jocular feeling of
persons in humbler life (as to invasion) may be gathered from a letter
in the same Correspondence (ii. 384), written from Fulham, by a
waiting gentlewoman in the service of Mrs. Donnellan, to a friend in
the country:—‘I really believe in my heart, Master do not care if the
French comes and eats us all up alive. Is there not flat boats, I know
not how many thousands, ready to come every day? and when they
once set out, they will be with us as quick as a swallow can fly,
almost; and when they land we have no body to fight them, because
you will not raise your militia. For my part, I dare not go to the
Thames, for fear they should be coming; and if I see one of our own
boats laden with carrots, I am ready to drop down thinking it one of
the French.’
How difficult it was for English subjects in France LADY M. W.
to send news to London is exemplified in a letter, MONTAGUE.
written in March, 1744, by Lady Mary Wortley
Montague, at Avignon, to her husband, of an interview with the Duke
de Richelieu. The latter asked her, ‘What party the Pretender had in
England?’ ‘I answered,’ she writes, ‘as I thought, a very small one.’
‘We are told otherwise at Paris,’ said he; ‘however a bustle at this
time may serve to facilitate our other projects, and we intend to
attempt a descent; at least, it will cause the troops to be recalled,
and perhaps Admiral Mathews will be obliged to leave the passage
open for Don Philip.’ The lady thus continues: ‘You may imagine how
much I wished to give you immediate notice of this; but as all the
letters are opened at Paris, it would have been to no purpose to write
it by post, and have only gained me a powerful enemy in the Court of
France. In my letter to Sir Robert Walpole, from Venice, I offered my
service, and desired to know in what manner I could send
intelligence, if anything happened to my knowledge that could be of
use to England. I believe he imagined that I wanted some
gratification, and he only returned me cold thanks.’
‘Nobody is yet taken up: God knows why not!’ CARTE, THE
Such is the exclamation of Horace Walpole in a letter NONJUROR.
to Mann, on the 23rd of February, this year.
Government, however, soon began the system of arrest. Colonel
Cecil, supposed to be designed for the Chevalier’s Secretary of
State, was captured. Papers which were found upon him
compromised Lord Barrymore, the Pretender’s general, who, before
day-break on a March morning, was arrested by a file of soldiers at
his house in Henrietta Street, Cavendish Square. Cecil had
previously removed his papers out of harm’s way; but, thinking the
danger over, he had resumed possession of them. ‘These
discoveries,’ says Horace Walpole, ‘go on but lamely. One may
perceive who is not Minister, rather than who is.’ The notorious
Carte, who had been taken up under a suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, was carried before the Duke of Newcastle. ‘Are you a
bishop?’ asked the duke, thinking he might be a Nonjuring prelate.
‘No, my lord duke,’ replied the Nonjuror; ‘there are no bishops in
England but what are of your Grace’s own making; and I am sure I
have no reason to expect that honour.’ After he was set at liberty, the
saucy ‘Westminster Journal’ remarked: ‘Mr. Carte was confined for
he knew not what; and discharged for he knew not why.’
Carte, the biographer of Ormond, and the ex- CARTE’S
secretary of Atterbury, was a man who had twice fled HISTORY OF
abroad when accounted a rebel, and who was ENGLAND.
allowed to return when he was thought to be
harmless. He, this year, issued a prospectus of his intended History
of England. The London municipality met the overture in a liberal
spirit which did it honour, but which brought upon it the bitterest
sarcasm of Horace Walpole. ‘I wish to God,’ he wrote in his anger to
Mann, from Arlington Street, in July, 1744, ‘I wish to God Boccalini
was living! Never was such an opportunity for Apollo’s playing off a
set of fools as there is now! The good City of London, who, from long
dictating to the Government, are now come to preside over taste and
letters, having given one Carte, a Jacobite parson, fifty pounds a
year, for seven years, to write the History of England; and four
aldermen and six common-councilmen are to inspect his materials
and the progress of the work. Surveyors of common-sewers turned
supervisors of literature! To be sure, they think a History of England
is no more than Stowe’s survey of the parishes! Instead of having
books printed with the imprimatur of an university, they will be
printed, as churches are whitewashed, John Smith and Thomas
Johnson, Churchwardens!’ Such was the light spirit with which the
fine gentleman of Strawberry visited the first step taken by the
London Corporation, in imitation of the ancient foreign guilds, to do
honour to literature and literary men. In Carte’s case, politics were
not considered. The Jacobite had given proof of his ability, and the
Whigs trusted to his honesty. If his discretion had been equal to both,
his History would have been more acceptable to the City companies.
This Nonjuror died in 1754.
Walpole had looked for a landing of the French and VARIOUS
the Pretender, in Essex or Suffolk. He thought the INCIDENTS.
English crown would be fought for, not on the seas
but on land, and he declared that he never knew how little he was a
Jacobite till it was almost his interest to be one. The interest changed
as London was secured and our preparations were more
successfully made than those of France. In March, he was sure, ‘if
they still attempt the invasion, there will be a bloody war.’ The spirit
of the nation was sound. As troops marched towards London, they
were fed and cherished on the way as the defenders of England
from Popery and the French. The London merchants were equally
spirited. The name of the French was injurious to the Chevalier’s
cause; and the fear of Popery was not abolished by the assurances
of the Jacobites that the young Chevalier was a Lutheran. One of the
curious features of the time was connected with the Swiss servants
in London, who formed themselves into a volunteer regiment, and
placed themselves at the disposal of the Government. The warlike
appearances subsided a little when tempests broke up the naval
preparations at Dunkirk, and drove the Brest squadron from the
Channel. The Jacobite interest, however, was maintained in some of
the counties. Walpole, in allusion to the changes in the Ministry at
the end of the year (when Carteret and Lord Granville withdrew),
says that several Tories refused to accept proffered posts from an
impossibility of being re-chosen for their Jacobite counties. One at
least may be excepted. Sir John Cotton was forced upon the king as
Treasurer of the Chambers. The king was naturally displeased that
an adherent of the Stuarts should be thrust into an office in the royal
household at St. James’s. The matter was illustrated by a caricature,
in which the Falstaffian Sir John was being thrust down his majesty’s
throat by the united endeavours of the Ministry—the ‘Broad-
bottom,’—a coalition of men of opposite parties, which therefore
gave a tameness to most of the debates.
 In the spring of this year died, in Rome, the only
contemptible Jacobite peer who had been LADY
NITHSDALE.
condemned to death; and he had had the good luck
to escape,—the Earl of Nithsdale. He was taken into the Chevalier’s
service, but for more than a quarter of a century, he looked to his
heroic wife for money; and was neither satisfied nor grateful. He was
unreasonably querulous, never had brains enough to be conscious
of what his wife had risked and had done for him; was mean and
untruthful; ever and utterly unworthy of this brave, noble, and true-
hearted woman. Even after her husband’s death she saved his
honour by paying his debts, as she had before saved his life. When
she too passed away, in 1749, there could not have been a Jacobite
who read the record of her death in the London papers, nor any
man, however he might have hated the Stuarts and their church, but
would have acknowledged that no truer martyr ever died at Rome
than this angelic daughter of the house of Herbert.
 CHAPTER V.

(1745.)
he stage took an early opportunity to put
‘TANCRED
forth utterances in behalf of ‘moral AND
order.’ On March 18th, 1745, Thomson, SIGISMUNDA.’
as warm a Hanoverian as could be
found among Scots, produced his tragedy—‘Tancred
and Sigismunda,’ at Drury Lane. The piece was ostentatiously
patronised by Frederick, Prince of Wales, to whom the poet
subsequently dedicated it, as a liberal patron of all arts, but
particularly of dramatic art. Pitt and Lyttelton were present at a
private reading of the play, which, therefore, had a certain political
significance, and Whigs and Jacobites sat in judgment on it.
Thomson’s cunning, however, enabled him to please both parties.
When Siffredi (Sheridan) uttered the lines, referring to a deceased
king,—
He sought alone the good of those for whom
He was entrusted with the sovereign power,
Well knowing that a people, in their rights
And industry protected, living safe
Beneath the sacred shelter of the laws,
Encouraged in their genius, arts, and labours,
And happy each as he himself deserves,
Are not ungrateful,—
the applause which followed had a divided, or a double, application;
but it was as nothing to the tumult of approbation which greeted the
passage emphasised by Tancred (Garrick):—
They have great odds
Against the astonished sons of Violence
Who fight with awful justice on their side.
 All Sicily will rouse, all faithful hearts
Will range themselves around Prince Manfred’s son;
For me, I here devote me to the service
Of this young Prince.
And again had thundering acclamation double-meaning when
Siffredi exclaimed:—
Thou art the man of all the many thousands
That toil upon the bosom of this isle,
By Heaven elected to command the rest,
To rule, protect them, and to make them happy.
When the first act ended, the factions of Jacobites and
Hanoverians were equally satisfied with their power of making
political use of passages in this play.
They found few opportunities in the second act; but both parties
clapped hands at the lines of Osman:—
We meet to-day with open hearts and looks;
Not gloom’d by Party scowling on each other,
But all, the children of one happy isle,
The social Sons of Liberty.
During the remainder of the tragedy the love-woes POLITICAL
of Tancred, and Sigismunda absorbed the sympathies DRAMA.
of the audience, though Thomson laid a clap-trap or two, in a
passage where mention was made of ‘a faithless prince, an upstart
king,’ and in an allusion to the Normans who bravely won,
With their own swords, their seats, and still possess them,
By the same noble tenure;
but especially in denouncement of a reign which Osmond
stigmatised as a usurpation; and added—
This meteor King may blaze awhile, but soon
Must spend his idle terrors;—
which usurpation Jacobites would assign to George; while Whigs
saw in the temporary royal meteor the ‘King’ in whose name, his son,
Charles Edward, was preparing to invade Great Britain.
The Earl of Orford, the champion of Brunswick and the staunch
supporter of the Hanoverian succession, died this year. Horace
Walpole says of his father, ‘he died, foretelling a Rebellion which
happened in less than six months, and for predicting which he had
been ridiculed.’ It required no gift of prophecy to foretell an event
which had been long almost openly preparing.
Amid the growing excitement of London, there was a motion
made by Mr. Carew in the Commons, for holding new parliaments
annually. He supported the motion by a curious illustration. The king,
he said, who first introduced long parliaments (Richard II.) was
dethroned and put to death by Henry of Lancaster, who took his
place and was honoured by the people as their deliverer from
slavery. Sir William Yonge replied that annual parliaments would
deprive the king of all power over them; and deprivation of all such
power cost Charles I. his head. Similar effect would follow from like
cause. Sir John Phillips, who was said to be equally troublesome
whether as patriot or placeman, was not only for annual parliaments,
but for a fresh Ministry every new session! The motion was
negatived by 145 to 112.
After the prorogation of Parliament which followed THE YOUNG
in May, the king went abroad. He did not return till the CHEVALIER.
end of July, more than a fortnight after the young
Chevalier had sailed from Port St. Nazaire, with a band of Scotch
and Irish adventurers, who, after much peril, arrived in the Hebrides.
The Regency, in London, offered a reward of 30,000l. to anyone who
should capture him on British ground. On the 4th of June King
James III. was proclaimed, at Perth, King of Great Britain. On the
10th a similar proclamation was made at Edinburgh. Five days later
the Highland army attacked, and in ten minutes, utterly routed Sir
John Cope, seven miles from Edinburgh, near Preston Pans, and
Gladsmuir. This victory left almost the whole of Scotland in
possession of the Jacobites,—and the road open to them to invade
England. They did not reach Carlisle till the 15th of November. On