AE3211-I - Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design

Requirement Analysis and Design principles for A/C stability &

control (Part 2)

Dr. Fabrizio Oliviero (FPP)

Delft
University of
Technology

Challenge the future

In previous lecture…
• We discussed about two important functional requirements for an aircraft: stability and
control.

• You learnt (or refreshed) the concept of neutral point and the required relative position
of the c.g. to guarantee longitudinal static stability (Xnp > XCG)

!
• You learnt how to plot, as function of the tail surface, the maximum allowed frw
AFT position
of the c.g. that guarantees longitudinal stability

• You understood the effect of various design parameters and flight conditions on the
longitudinal stability of the aircraft, e.g.:
• The cruise is the sizing condition for stability
less! stable is the A/C
• The higher the lift gradient of the wing, the more

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 2

….you learnt that…

A longitudinally statically stable aircraft is

able to react to any variation of its angle of
attack, with an opposite moment:

dCm
0
d

Longitudinal static stability is guaranteed by the following condition:

(xnp – xcg) > 0.
That is, the c.g. must always stay in front of the neutral point

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 3

….you learnt that…
2
C L h  d  S hlh  Vh 
xnp  xac  1    
C L  d  Sc V 
2
C L h  d  S h lh  Vh 
Sh/S xcg  xac  1      0.05
C L  d  Sc V 

xcg  xac  S .M .

Stick-fixed n.p.

Stick-fixed static margin (S.M.)

Xcg/MAC
LEMAC xcg  xac
AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 4
 Other situations constraining the aft c.g. point

• Limits on the minimum and maximum forces to actuate the stick (or column) in order to bring
the aircraft into a manoeuvre put constrains on the aft c.g. position. When the c.g. is very aft, the
aircraft becomes too sensitive to control.

• A very stable aircraft has a very high Stability Marginto vary its equilibrium point big forces are
necessary
• Moving the cg aft, the stability margin is reduced so it is easier to “perturbate” the aircraft from its
equilibrium point
• In the limit case of a neutrally stable aircraft a zero force is needed to modify the equilibrium point

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 5

Other situations constraining the aft c.g. point
Note the
difference!

Too large
forces

Xn.p. – Xc.g = 0.05MAC

Minimum control
force
(feel)

Source Torenbeek

By designing the aircraft for stick-fixed static stability and assuming a stability margin of 5%MAC, the
stick-free and minimum control force limits can be also (indirectly) accounted.

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 6

In this lecture, you will …

• Refresh the concepts of a/c trim & control

• Learn the way trim & control requirements constrain the position of the center of
gravity

• Learn to build the controllability curve of the scissor plot

• Learn how to combine the scissor plot with the c.g range vs. wing position plot, in order
to determine the optimum combination of tail size and longitudinal wing position

• Face another design iteration to be managed

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 7

Design principles for a/c
longitudinal control

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 8

Trimming the aircraft
From the translation and rotation equilibrium (around c.g.)
we have:

L  LAh  Lh  W
M  M ac  LAh ( xcg  xac )  Lh lh

Using the definition of lift and moment coefficients for the tail
and the tailless aircraft * (≈ wing-fuselage group), we obtain
the following:

xcg  xac C Lh S h lh  Vh  2
Cm  Cmac  C L Ah ( )  
c Sc  V 

Tail contribution

Try to derive the equation w.r.t. α and set Cmα=0

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 9
Trimming the aircraft
Given a certain aircraft configuration, a combination of wing-fuselage and tail lift coefficients should exists
such that the total aircraft moment coefficient Cm  0 is null.
When this happens the aircraft is said to be trimmed and the following is true:

xcg  xac C Lh S hlh  Vh  2

Cma c  C L Ah ( )  
c Sc  V 
Hence, for
• different positions of the aircraft c.g.,
• different positions of the aircraft-less-tail aerodynamic center,
• different values of the aerodynamic moment coefficient Cmac,
• different values of the aircraft-less-tail lift coefficient, and
• different speed values (flight speed and speed at tailplane).

the tail will have to generate different CLh values, either by rotating the whole stabilizer and/or modifying
the elevator angle.
AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 10
 Trimming the aircraft (example)
xcg  xac C Lh S hlh  Vh  2 Tail contribution
C m  C m a c  C L A h ( )  
c Sc  V 

Co
mp
le te
air
c ra
ft Trim point: Cm=0
ne
t ailpla
ft less tail contribution
r a
Airc required to trim

Typically negative (nose down) and ≈Cmac

(almost) invariant with α
Tail
contribution

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 11

Trimming the aircraft: possible approaches
The A/C must be trimmable in different conditions (e.g. different AoA)
Cm
Cm

at1 a
at1 a

xcg  xac CLh Sh lh  Vh  2

Cm  Cmac  CL A h ( )   CLh CLh
c Sc  V  CLh  d  d e
  e
C Lh

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 12

Tail lift required for trim the aircraft

Full flaps out

(@landing)
Slats out
(@takeoff)
Clean wing (@cruise)

Cmcg

CLh

xcg  xac CLh S h lh  Vh  2 S h lh V 

2
xcg  xac
Cmac  CL Ah ( )   1  h  1 Cmac  C L Ah ( )  CLh
c Sc  V  Sc V  c

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design xcg  xac

Cmcg  Cmac  CL15 ( )
A h
c
Tail design for controllability
Rearranging the trim equation we obtain:
2
xcg  xac C Lh S hlh  Vh  2 C ma c C Lh S hlh  Vh 
Cmac  C L Ah ( )   xcg  xac    
c Sc  V  C L Ah C L Ah Sc V 

Sh/S controllable Cmac

 xac
Sh 1 C L Ah
 x 
2 cg 2
S C Lh lh  Vh  C Lh lh  Vh 
   
C L Ah c  V  C L Ah c V 

Xcg/MAC To allow the c.g. to travel further

LEMAC Cmac
xac xac  forward, this term should be
C L Ah decreased (larger denominator)

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 16

Tail design for controllability
Full moving tail

Adjustable tail
Cmac C Lh S hlh  Vh  2
Fixed tail xcg  xac    
C L Ah C L Ah Sc  V 

Sh/S

= -1 full moving tail

CLh = -0.8 adjustable
controllable = -0.35Ah1/3 fixed tail

Xcg/MAC Effect of tail configuration

LEMAC C ma c
xac xac 
CL
AE3221-I ASystems
h
Engineering and Aerospace Design 17
Example of horizontal tail configurations
Cessna 177 Fokker 27 777

F16 Fixed tail

A330
Full moving tails Adjustable tails
AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 18
Tail design for controllability
2
C ma c C Lh S h lh  Vh  Zero Lift pitching moment coefficient of
xcg  xac     the aircraft without tail
C L A h C L A  h Sc V 
flaps fuselage Nacelle
Cmac  Cmac   f Cmac   fusCmac   nacCmac
w

Flaps contribution
Cmac  Cm0airfoil (Acos2Λ/(A+2cos Λ)) in next slides
w

 2.5bf   bf hf l f CL0 See previous lecture

 fusCmac  1.8  1  
 l f  4Sc CL A  h ATT: recompute for
low speed now!!!

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 19

Tail design for controllability
Change in zero-lift wing pitching moment due to C mac  Cmacw   f Cmac   fusCmac
flap deflection .   nacCmac
Wind tunnel tests

Source Obert
AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 23
Tail design for controllability
C ma c C Lh S h lh  Vh  2
xcg  xac    
C L Ah C L Ah Sc  V 

Sh/S • Forward locations of a.c. are positive

controllable
for controllability, but negative for

y
stability.

lit
bi
• Very stable aircraft, do not typically

a
st
excel in controllability.
• Lowering the aerodynamic pitching
moment allows improving
controllability without spoiling
stability,
• …but effective flaps always yield very
Xcg/MAC negative Cmac values
LEMAC C ma c
xac xac 
CL
AE3221-I ASystems
h
Engineering and Aerospace Design 24
X-plot assembly and match with the wing shift vs
c.g.range plot

Design of the optimal (minimum size) horizontal tail and longitudinal

positioning of the wing (w.r.t. the fuselage)

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 25

Horizontal Tailplane sizing
Assumptions on the c.g. position constraining requirements:
• most aft c.g. position limited by static longitudinal stability (stick fixed, flaps retracted, cruise speed, SM
>5%MAC)
• most forward c.g. position limited by aircraft controllability at minimum speed during approach with flaps
fully extended

eq. (2) eq. (1)

Xcg/MAC
2
Cmac C Lh S h lh  Vh  CL h  d   Sh lh  Vh  2
xcg  xac     xcg  xac  1      S .M .
C L A h C L A  h Sc V  CL Ah  d  Sc  V 
AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 26
Horizontal Tailplane sizing
For the required c.g. range*: xcgaft  xcgfwd  xcg

xcg xnp  xcg Cmac

Subtracting the stability and controllability equation  
from each other: Sh c c CLmax

S  CL  d   C L

 V 
2
lh

h
1  
 d  C   V  c
h h
C
 L A  h    
Lmax 

Observations:
• xcg : a/c with large paylo ad variatio ns need large tail area
• c
• (xnp -xc g ): larger stability m argins yields a larger tail area
%)
• Cm ac
: a/c with eff ective trailing-edge f laps have significant
(negative) aero dynam ic m o ment, i.e., need ef fective elevator (large
and with m uch def lection)
Obser vatio ns:
• xcg : a/c with lar ge paylo ad var iatio ns need lar ge tail area
• c
• (xn p -xcg ): lar ger stability margins yields a larger tail area
%)
• Cm  :
ac
a/c with effective tr ailing-edge flaps have signif icant
(negative) aero dynamic m om ent, i.e., need effective elevato r (lar ge
and with much deflect io n)

Observations:
• xcg : a/c with large payload variations need large tail area
• c
• (xnp -xcg ): larger stability margins yields a larger tail area
%)
• Cm  : a/c with effective trailing-edge flaps have significant
ac

(negative) aerodynamic moment, i.e., need effective elevator (large

and with much deflection)

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 27

Horizontal Tailplane sizing
xcg xnp  xcg Cmac
 
Sh c c CLmax

S 
 CL h  d  CLh  2
  Vh  l h
  1  C   c
 C
 L A  h  d  Lmax 
  V 

Observations (cont’d):

• d/d  : high downwash rates require larger tail. High vertical position
of horizontal tail is beneficial.

• (Vh /V )2: low mounted tailplane inside fuselage boundary layer.

• lh  : long tail arm is effective, but increases fuselage weight. For given
tailplane root position, sweepback increases lh , but reduces CLh .
α

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 28

 Recalling the effect of wing shift on c.g. travel

c.g. max range at wing position 3 (backward)

laoding diagran wing position 2

45000
c.g. max range at wing position 1
43000

41000
wing position 2

39000 window seats

aisle seats
middle seat
37000 fuel
cargo
mass [kg]

35000

33000 c.g. max range at wing position 2 (forward)

31000

29000

27000

25000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400
xcg [mac]

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 30

Matching the plots (example)
CG range due to wing
positioning

X-Plot: tail surface vs CG

range

Design strategy:
Make use of both the graphs in order to
retrieve the SUITABLE combination of
wing position and tail size.

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 31

Matching the plots (example)
Assuming an initial
position XLEmac = 0.38

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 33

Matching the plots (example)

Assuming an initial
position XLEmac = 0.38

The Sh/S has to be big enough

to compensate the stability
problem due to the very frw
position of the wing

Sh/S = 0,27

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 35

Matching the plots (example)
Assuming an initial
position XLEmac = 0.44

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 36

Matching the plots (example)
Assuming an initial
position XLEmac = 0.44

The Sh/S has to be big

enough to compensate
control problems due to
the very frw position of
the cg

Sh/S=0,39

Can you find an

OPTIMAL solution for
this example?

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 37

Matching the plots (example)
The best combination of XLEmac positon and minimum tail size is when…
The cg limits due to stability and control in the scissor plots, match the extreme CG position depending on the
wing locations.

The intersection between the

control limits and the most frw CG
position has the same height of
the intersection between the
stability and the most aft CG
position

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 38

Matching the plots (example)

The optimal horizontal tail

has an optimal surface
ratio Sh/S of 0.21

The optimal horizontal tail

size is obtained for wing
positioning such that
XLEMAC/lfus = 0.395

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 39

Matching the plots (example)
The matching points must be on
the same horizontal line, because
they represent the c.g. limits for
one specific wing location

ATT! Check the tail size and wing position

values obtained here with those initially used to
build the plots.
In case of a difference >10% it is
advisable to iterate!

Make sure you have

the same scale for the
xcg/MAC axis and the
two graphs are
properly aligned

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 40

Tail lift required for take-off
Apart from controlling the aircraft at minimum speed with fully deployed flaps*, the tail size must be
sufficient also to rotate the aircraft at take off

Once the position of the main landing gear is known, a check should be made on the actual capability of the
tail to generate sufficient negative lift.

The tail downforce should be able to counteract the weight moment around the rotation point (the landing
gear) plus the aerodynamic pitching moment generated by wing with extend flaps (take off setting).

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 41

 Drag associated with controllability
The drag due to the lift* generated by the tail to trim the aircraft is called trim drag:

Dtrim
1 2  Vh 
 V   Sh kCLh 1
2 k
V   Ah e
CLh
If in cruise the tail has to provide a high , the trim drag can results a non negligible term
of the overall drag. If it becomes too large (≥ 10% total aircraft drag), the overall design
should be reconsidered, aiming at reducing the tail lift coefficient.

The following options could be considered:

1. Move the c.g. aft, hence closer to the neutral point**
2. Increase the tail volume coefficient (which will also move the c.g. aft)***
3. Increase the lift gradient of the tail, by increasing the tail aspect ratio Ah ( K decreases)

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 42

• Mission
definition
N2 charts* to map the
•
•
fuel fractions
L/D
design process and help
•
•
SFC
OEW/MTOW
managing iterations
Class I weight • OEW OEW
• MTOW
estimation • Fuel weight
• Engine selection
• Fuselage sizing L,D,
• L/D
• Wing sizing & S…
• 3D views
• SFC preliminary • nult
positioning
• Preliminary tail
sizing & positioning
• Class II weight
estimation • OEW
OEW
• c.g. determination • c.g. range

• Tail sizing &

• Tail size and
position positioning
L/D • Wing position • Wing positioning
• Landing gear • Landing gear
position
positioning

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 43

Non conventional Aircraft

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 45

Trim for tailless aircraft (flying wings)

xcg  xac C Lh S h lh  Vh  2 In case of a tailless aircraft this

Cmac  C L Ah ( )   term is null.
c Sc  V 

However the aircraft can be trimmed anyway! In this case:

xac  xcg
Cmac  C L ( )
c
For tailless aircraft the aerodynamic center coincides with the
neutral point (xac=xnp).

Since for stability (xnp – xcg) > 0 then Cmac>0 (pitch up*)

…whereas, for conventional aircraft, Cmac <0 (pitch down).

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 46

Stability and controllability of tailless aircraft
Cm

Stable, positive Cmac

Cmac
Unstable, negative Cmac
Cmac
cg cg
ac ac

trim trim trim

CL

cg
ac
Cmac
Stable, negative Cmac

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 47

CANARD Aircraft

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 48

Tail sizing – canard configuration

Also for the canard configuration the forces schema is similar to the conventional case,
but…
Pay attention to the sign of both the forces arms and the moments!

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 50

Tail sizing – canard configuration
controllability
Cmac C Lh S hlh  Vh  2
xcg  xac    
C L A h C L Ah Sc  V 

Sh/S

atan( )

1
C Lh lh  Vh  2
 
C L A h c  V 

lh<0 and CLh>0, LEMAC Xcg/MAC

C ma c
controllability =1 xac 
gradient <0 C L Ah

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 51

Tail sizing – canard configuration
controllability stability
Cmac C Lh S hlh  Vh  2 C L h  d  S h lh  Vh 
2
xcg  xac     xcg  xac  1      0.05
C L A h C L Ah Sc  V  C L  d  Sc V 
Sh/S
1
2
atan( ) atan( ) C L  h  d  l h  Vh 
1    
C L  d  c V 

1
C Lh lh  Vh  2 lh<0 =1
  S.M.
C L A h c  V 

LEMAC Xcg/MAC
<0
=1 xac C ma c
xac 
C L A h

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 52

Tail sizing – canard configuration
c.g. range rather limited!

Sh/S
1
atan( ) atan( ) C L h l h
C L c

1
C Lh lh
C L A h c S.M.

LEMAC Xcg/MAC
Cmac
xac xac 
C L Ah

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 54

 Tail sizing – canard configuration
To increase stability:
• Use short tail arm
• Have wing lift gradient higher than
canard’s

You want to
lower this! A relaxed (almost zero) stability
margin is generally used

You want to
increase this!

To increase controllability:
• Use high tail arm Not powerful flaps allowed (with
• Have high canard CLh but make sure that canard CLmax is too low pitching moment) to avoid the
lower* than the wing’s (the canard must stall before controllability curve shifting to the right
wing).
AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 55
Canard configuration – overall comments

• In all the flight conditions the canard produces a positive lift

• Fuselage/wing intersection behind cabin and, if the wing is properly located aft…
• Synergistic use of winglets for directional stability*.
• Usually, when simple HLD are used, the CLmax of a canard a/c may exceed that of an aft-tail airplane.
• Reduced induced drag, better area distribution (reduced wave drag), better control authority.

• Both Fuel CG and flap deflection reduce design space

• Wake on the main wing: worse induced drag
• Aircraft severely affected by tail design: It is easy to
make a very bad canard design

AE3221-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 57