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

net/publication/334164115

A flight testing approach to aircraft dynamics, stability and control

Experiment Findings · May 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25335.27045

CITATIONS READS
0 52

1 author:

Victor Covasan
The University of Sheffield
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Covasan on 02 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

Aircraft Dynamics and Control

AER324 - Spring Semester 2019

A flight testing approach to aircraft

dynamics, stability and control

Author: Supervisor:
Victor Covasan Dr L. S. Mihaylova

Abstract
A study focused on examining the stability and handling characteristics of a Jetstream 31
aircraft during standard flight testing procedures. The paper begins with the relevance
of flight testing and the regulations involved in ensuring fair conduction and correct
interpretation of the results. Subsequently, a detailed analysis of the longitudinal static
stability attributes is presented from both stick free and stick fixed perspectives, the
static and manoeuvre margins are determined. Finally, the aircraft response during the
five fundamental dynamic modes is investigated and related to the relevant certification
requirements.

July 2, 2019
 Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Purposes of Flight Testing and Regulations 1

3 Longitudinal Static Stability 2

3.1 Stick Fixed Static Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Stick Free Static Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 Longitudinal Manoeuvre Stability 5

4.1 Stick Fixed Manoeuvre Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Stick Free Manoeuvre Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 LSS - The Overall Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5 Aircraft Dynamic Modes 9

5.1 Short Period Oscillation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 Phugoid Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3 Roll Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4 Dutch Roll Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5 Spiral Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 Conclusions 15

1
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
1 Introduction
The present study aims to provide a com-
prehensive discussion on the relevance of flight
testing for assessing the stability characteristics
of aircraft. The importance of in-flight exper-
imental analysis methods is emphasised along
with its advantages over analytical or numeri-
cal methods such as simulation or finite-element
techniques. First, the longitudinal static stabil-
ity characteristics are discussed, as they reflect
the inherent stability properties achieved by de-
sign but also because they are a pre-requisite for
dynamic mode analysis. Subsequently, the re-
sults describing the five fundamental dynamic
modes of conventional aircraft are presented:
Short Period Oscillation, Phugoid, Roll Sub-
sidence, Dutch Roll and Spiral, together with
the applicable regulations. The test was con-
ducted at Cranfield University using a Jetstream
31 aeroplane fitted with advanced measurement
equipment for real-time data collection. The air-
craft was considered appropriate for this purpose
due to its low-wing, twin engine configuration,
which reproduces well the flying characteristics
of common commercial transport aircraft. As
it will be seen in §2, the Jetstream 31 is rated
as a Class II(medium weight, low to medium
manoeuvrability) aircraft according to MIL-F-
8785C(Aircraft Types).
2 Purposes of Flight Testing
and Regulations
Flight testing is an essential component of
the production cycle of any aircraft, which pre-
cedes the awarding of certification and aims to
prove the airworthiness of the aircraft in a rig-
orous and structured way. The main purposes
Page 1
of flight testing are to attempt to identify design
or manufacturing flaws before delivery and to en-
sure that the quality and safety standards are be-
ing satisfied. Flight testing possesses several in-
contestable advantages when compared to other
approaches such as simulation or wind tunnel
testing(which only attempt to capture numerical
measures of the flying qualities), the most signif-
icant one being that flight testing is the only way
to quantify and include pilot’s perspective on the
handling qualities of the aircraft(using standard-
ised ratings such as The Cooper-Harper rating
scale) but also more subjective characteristics
such as overall cabin comfort, ease of reaching
the controls during manoeuvre etc. Moreover,
the flight testing data has been used to validate
or correct the results from wind tunnel experi-
ments and to provide a better understanding of
the aerodynamics of complex and highly nonlin-
ear manoeuvres such as spinning or stall.[1] Also,
flight testing establishes the operating envelope
of the aircraft, initial maintainability features
and compatibility with ground support equip-
ment, which will have to be conveyed to the
customer.[7]
It is fundamental for safety-critical industries
such as aviation and aerospace to have govern-
mental and intergovernmental agencies like the
FAA or EASA, that have the necessary resources
and motivation, to establish well-researched, re-
liable standards for the commercial aircraft man-
ufacturers in order to ensure the safety and se-
curity of the end-users. For the purposes of
certifying aeroplanes from a stability point of
view, two documents are of special relevance for
flight testing: Part 23 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations(FAR)which covers stability require-
ments and handling characteristics for small air-
planes in the normal, utility and acrobatic cat-
egories and Section 25 which is concerned with
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. These specify acceptable damping ra-
tios, natural frequencies, time periods and other
guidelines for safe operation during common ma-
noeuvres. Similar Requirements are established
by the British Civil Airworthiness Requirements
in Certification Standards(CS) 23 and 25, which
bring additional numerical limits for handling
characteristics such as for the Stick Fixed Static
Margin(discussed in the next section).[7]
On the other hand, military aircraft must fol-
low the specifications and standards mentioned
in MIL-HDBK(Flying qualities of piloted air-
craft), MIL-F-9490(Flight Control Systems) etc.
The need for separation from commercial aircraft
arises from the divergence in their design require-
ments, while transport aircraft are designed with
safety and reliability as a top priority, military
aircraft are conceived for extreme manoeuvrabil-
ity, performance and often stealth. Additionally,
these benefit from self regulation by the Military
Aviation Authority(eg: Air Force Regulation 80-
14).
3 Longitudinal Static Stability
Longitudinal static stability is concerned with the
initial tendency of the aircraft to return to its ini-
tial equilibrium position when disturbed in pitch.
This type of stability is significantly influenced by
the geometrical configuration and centre of grav-
ity(CG) position at any given moment. The first
one is established by design while the CG loca-
tion is altered by the mass distribution inside the
aeroplane; both of them impact the magnitude of
the restoring moment generated to counteract the
disturbance.
The three general types of stability an aircraft
can possess are: stable, neutrally stable and un-
Page 2
Figure 1: Types of Stability[6]
stable(exemplified in Figure 1), each one of them
being applicable to either static or dynamic anal-
ysis. In the first case, when disturbed by a posi-
tive gust, a negative restoring moment is gener-
ated which brings the airplane back to equilib-
rium, while in the second case both the distur-
bance and the restoring moment are in the same
direction, causing the airplane to diverge from
the initial equilibrium position. Lastly, neutral
stability implies that the airplane tends to main-
tain the attitude set by the disturbance, no re-
action moment being generated. Although an
aircraft might be statically stable, the ampli-
tude of the corrective oscillations might either
grow(dynamically unstable), or be damped over
time(dynamically stable), this will be the focus
of §5. From a Lyapunov perspective, the aircraft
can also posses stable static characteristics and
neutral dynamic stability, that being the case of-
ten with neutrally stable spiral modes.
A central concern of this paper is the degree
of longitudinal stability for a given CG posi-
tion, which is usually expressed graphically as
the variation in pitching moment coefficient(Cm )
with incidence(α) or lift coefficient(CL ) as seen
in Figure 2.
This from, which stems from the theoretical
calculation of the total pitching moment coef-
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
Figure 2: The Degree of Longitudinal flight testing point of view because it transfers
Stability[3]
ficient(Equation 1)[2], is very useful during con- tion.
ceptual design but difficult to assess directly dur-
ing flight testing, which rises the need to derive
different formulations of the same dependency
but expressed in terms of directly measurable
quantities such as elevator deflection, trim tab
deflection, normal acceleration etc.
Cm = Cm0 + Cmα α + Cmδe δe + Cmih ih
(1)
3.1 Stick Fixed Static Stability
The first type of longitudinal stability to be con-
sidered is the ”stick fixed” case, which implies
that constant elevator input from the pilot is
Page 3
required in order to keep the aircraft trimmed
in pitch. The two fundamental conditions nec-
essary to be satisfied are negative pitch stiff-
ness(negative slope of the Cm vs CL graph), and
the ”nose up” condition(positive Cm0 ). These
can be related to the elevator deflection and lift
coefficient(Figure 4) by Equation 2.[2].
∂δe CmCL
=− (2)
∂CL Cmδe
This equation is especially relevant from a
the characteristics of the Cm curve to a more
easily measurable variable such as surface deflec-
Figure 3: Determining the Gradient for Each CG
Position
The elevator angle was recorded during
steady-level flight using rotation sensors
mounted on the control hinges while the coef-
ficient of lift was inferred using the Indicated
Airspeed Ve measured by the Pitot tubes and
the mean aircraft mass m using Equation 3.[5]
m
CL = 2.412 (3)
Ve2
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

By plotting their dependency(Figure 3), it can
be seen that the further aft CG position corre-
sponds to a more negative slope of the η vs CL
graph.
Having this data implies that by using at least
two gradients obtained for different mass load-
ings, the CG position where the slope becomes
zero could be interpolated. This location is
called the Stick Fixed Neutral Point(hn or nx)
and coincides with the aerodynamic centre(AC)
of the aircraft(Figure 4).
3.2 Stick Free Static Stability
Conventional aircraft are often equipped with
trim wheels or other types of attitude control
mechanisms which help maintain a desired atti-
tude without constant pilot input(hence ”stick
free”) by deflecting the trim tabs instead. As a
result, the elevator is not rigidly held in place but
free to float, the pitching moment being gener-
ated by the rigid deflection of the trim tab. This
aims to reduce the pilot effort and help reject
constant atmospheric disturbances but it also af-
fects the allowable CG range and the degree of
longitudinal stability. It is usually assumed dur-
ing conceptual design that the stick free neutral
point is 2-5% ahead of the stick fixed one[6], as
the possible stick travel range is reduced by in-
cremental trimming, however the implications of
the assumption will be discussed in §4.3.

Figure 4: Interpolation of the Stick Fixed Neu-

tral Point

These results suggests that at the AC, the air-

craft incidence is not affected by the elevator in-
put, hence any pitch disturbance will set the new
angle of attack without a recovering moment be-
ing generated. Therefore the aerodynamic centre
is the point of stick fixed neutral stability.
While MIL-HDBK-1797 and FAR Parts 23
and 25 only require the elevator fixed neutral
point to be aft of the centre of gravity for all load-
ing conditions(for aft tail configurations), which
ensures CMα to be positive for all CG positions,
the British Civil Airworhiness Requirements[2,
Paragraph 2.1] also specify a maximum allow-
able negative stick fixed margin of -0.05.
Figure 5: Determining the Gradient for Each CG
Position
Stick free stability is investigated using the
trim curves defined by the variations in trim tab
deflection β with respect to CL for different CG
configurations(Figure 5). Since the trim tab and
elevator are deflected in opposite directions, the
slope of the trim curves for the stick free case
will have the opposite sign. The resulting lin-

Page 4
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
ear regression suggests that an increase in tab quired).
deflection is required to maintain trimmed flight
for increasing angles of attack.
Figure 6: Interpolation of the Stick Free Neutral
Point
As before, the data for a different CG config-
urations was analysed and concluded that fur-
ther aft positions of the CG tend to render less
positive gradients, which correspond to decreas-
ing static stability. As a consequence, with a
minimum of two slopes being determined and by
knowing their corresponding CG values, the CG
position of the zero-slope case can be linearly in-
terpolated(Figure 6), thus finding the Stick Free
Neutral point(h0n or ne).
As seen from Figure 7, the aeroplane complies
with the CS 25.173(c) Regulation: ”The aver-
age gradient of the stable slope of the stick force
versus speed curve may not be less than 1 pound
for each 6 kts.”, whereas the recorded data ex-
hibits a gradient almost five times the minimum
legal requirement(4.9027). The positive slope
suggests that any substantial speed change re-
sults in a stick force clearly perceptible to the
pilot, which is critical in order to prevent the pi-
lot from easily overstressing the airframe(having
as a clear warning the excessive stick force re-
Page 5
Figure 7: Determining the Slope of the Stick
Force vs Airspeed Graph
This evaluation proves one of the main advan-
tages of flight testing: the controls in the cockpit
and the control surfaces can be equipped with
force and angle measurement transducers(strain
gauges and rotary encoders), therefore the phys-
ical force required to produce the a given control
input can be measured and feedback from the
pilot on the physical feel can be included. This
is especially important because artificial feel sys-
tems such as the spring-augmented systems are
not straightforward to tune for the exact range
of forces that are transmitted to the pilot.
4 Longitudinal Manoeuvre Sta-
bility
While static margins aim to quantify the degree
of stability, manoeuvre stability assesses the con-
trollability and handling qualities of the aircraft.
Concretely, it is concerned with the flight con-
ditions when the load factor n is not equal to
one, which manifests as a non-zero normal ac-
celeration nz ; longitudinally, this implies that the
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
aeroplane has a pitch rate q. This leads to an in-
crease in the effective weight of the airframe by
(n + 1)g but also implies that an additional pitch
damping term Cmq is present in the total mo-
ment coefficient expression(Equation 4)[2] which
increases the longitudinal stability of the aero-
plane and expands the allowable CG range. This
is achieved due to the supplementary increase in
tail incidence during manoeuvre, which acts as a
shock absorber[4] and increases the static stabil-
ity.
Cm = Cm0 + Cmα α + Cmδe δe + Cmih ih + Cmq Q
(4)
Graphically, the degree of manoeuvre stability is
represented on ’control travel per G’ and ’stick
force per G’ charts, which for a stable aircraft
show that the control effort required to maintain
trimmed flight increases with increasing normal
acceleration(it becomes more difficult to develop
develop control forces as the normal acceleration
increases), which again has a critical importance
in preventing the pilot from over-stressing the
airframe or exceeding the manoeuvre envelope.
4.1 Stick Fixed Manoeuvre Stability
As before, stick fixed stability regards the fly-
ing behaviour developed for constant elevator
input, but instead of observing the effect on
lift/incidence, it monitors the normal accelera-
tions developed as a result of the control action.
This has been accomplished during flight testing
by performing a wind-up turn in and measur-
ing the resulting increase in normal acceleration,
as sensed by the aircraft’s inertial mass unit.
Page 6
The acceleration is maintained until the damp-
ing force generated by the horizontal tail equals
the moment caused by the increase in incidence,
this is when the manoeuvre becomes steady. Due
to the transient nature of the process, increased
sensing accuracy is required and shorter collec-
tion time; it will be shown in §5.1 that the dy-
namics influencing this convergence are strongly
influenced by the Short Period Oscillation char-
acteristics of the aeroplane. Similarly, the total
pitching moment is expressed in coefficient form
is a function of the control input and normal ac-
celeration, which transfers the characteristics of
the pitching moment coefficient Cm into a more
easily measurable form represented by Equation
5.
∂δe CmCL W gXh
=− − 2
∂n Cmδe q̄S U1 τe
(5)
A more negative slope of the ’control travel per
g’ graph (Fwd CG)indicates a stronger tendency
to return to ’1-g’ flight after a disturbance, while
further aft positions of the CG suggest a more
manoeuvrable aircraft, but which requires less
control effort to develop normal accelerations.
Analogue to the previous examples, the neg-
ative slope of the graph corresponds to stabil-
ity, as well as a decrease in gradient indicating a
less stable aircraft. This implies that as the nor-
mal acceleration increases, an increasing ”pull-
up” elevator deflection(negative η) is required to
maintain trimmed flight. The aim of the exercise
remains, based on the trend established by the
two measurements, to interpolate the CG posi-
tion where the slope becomes zero, which would
correspond to the stick fixed Manoeuvre Point
hm (Figure 9). Based on this, the Stick Fixed
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

Figure 10: Elevator Control Circuit[5]

Figure 8: Elevator Travel per G
4.2 Stick Free Manoeuvre Stability
Whereas for static stability, the stick free case
Manoeuvre Margin(Hm ) can be calculated as the
involved the effect of trim tabs, in manoeuvre
difference between the the Manoeuvre Point and
flight the focus is placed on the physical force
Aft CG location, therefore the Hm is a measure
on the control column required from the pilot
of the ease to handle the aircraft. Since the ac-
in order to develop normal acceleration. This is
ceptable acceleration limits are usually aircraft-
critical for giving the pilot a sense of how heavily
specific, most of the regulations do not pose re-
the airframe is stressed and must not allow for
strictions on the stick travel but instead focus
forces exceeding the manoeuvre envelope. Al-
on the stick force required to maintain steady
though for light aircraft the stick force might
manoeuvre, which will be discussed next.
be transmitted directly to the control surfaces,
as the size increases the need for power amplifi-
cation through hydraulic and electromechanical
actuators becomes evident. In such situations,
the link between the aerodynamic loads and the
pilot is broken and artificial feel systems have to
be implemented in order to alert the pilot during
manoeuvres.
A simple form of achieving this is by introduc-
ing a spring in between the actuators and the
control column(Figure 10) which places a quan-
titatively appropriate force on the controls such
that the aerodynamic loads on the surfaces are
Figure 9: Interpolation of the Stick Fixed Ma- translated into a manageable force felt by the pi-
noeuvre Point lot. It is in such scenarios that the need for reg-
ulation becomes critical in order to ensure that
all manufacturers obey the same set of standards

Page 7
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

established as a result of rigorous and unbiased steady manoeuvres or wind up turns is consid-
studies on human performance in order to pre- ered acceptable”; as it can be seen from the stick
vent risks arising from subjective design consid- force values obtained in Figure 11, the results are
erations. also in compliance with this requirement.

Figure 11: ’Stick Force’ per G

The relationship between the normal acceler-

ation and the forces required to develop it can Figure 12: Interpolation of the Stick Free Ma-
be visualised on a ’stick force per g’ chart(Figure noeuvre Point
11), where n was obtained from the inertial mass
unit of the airplane and Pη was calculated using Additionally, with the equation obtained from
the measured force PL obtained from the strain the linear fit applied to the data shown in Fig-
gauges placed on the elevator hinge and Equa- ure 12, the actual stick force gradient values for
tion 6. [5] Using the three slope values obtained, which the aeroplane was certified can be inferred:
the Stick Free Manoeuvre Point(h0m or me) can for a forward CG position of 16%MAC this re-
be interpolated(Figure 12). sults in a 164lbf force while an aft CG position
of 37% delivers 25lbf. These results are in agree-
Pη = 0.4 × k × [PL − Pspring ] (6) ment with the CS25 standards for ’Stick Force
per g’ but exceed the CS23 requirement for min-
The AMC No.1 to CS 25.153(g) states that imum and maximum stick forces(one hand).
”the average stick force gradient does not exceed
534N(120lbf)/g.”. For the determined values,
4.3 LSS - The Overall Picture
the gradient of the ’stick force vs g’ graph(Figure
11) varies from 60.18 to 85.1 lbf/g, hence the re- By placing all the points obtained so far along
sults indicate that the airplane does not exceed the longitudinal axis of the airplane, with orders
the regulation limits. Additionally, AMC No.2 corresponding to their CG locations normalised
to CS25.143 (g)(Minimum Stick Force to Reach to the mean aerodynamic chord, it can be seen
Limit Strength) states that: ”A stick force of that the manoeuvre points are aft of the neutral
at least 222N(50 lbf) to reach limit strength in points, the amount by which being a function

Page 8
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
of the pitch damping term Mq .[5] Although the 5.1
Figure 13: Relative Positions of the Critical
Points[8]
theoretical results predicted the stick free points
to lay ahead of their stick fixed counterparts,
the experimental analysis reveals just the oppo-
site(Figure 13). This is mainly attributed to the
presence of the spring in the elevator actuation
loop(Figure 10), which stores some of the force
required to deflect the elevator but also rejects
disturbances attempting to change the instanta-
neous deflection, therefore expanding the stabil- Figure 14: The Elevator Input Triggering the
ity margin.
5 Aircraft Dynamic Modes
Whereas static stability was focused on the mag-
nitude and direction of the initial tendency of
the airplane following a disturbance, this section
argues the importance of the aircraft behaviour
over time, considering parameters such as the
time taken to return to equilibrium, damping and
other oscillation parameters. The regulations en-
suring that these characteristics are within ac-
ceptable limits can also be found in the CS 23
and 25 amendments. These are divided into lon-
gitudinal(short period and phugoid) and lateral-
directional modes(roll subsidence, dutch roll and
spiral); for simplicity, it is assumed that the dy-
namics of the two categories are not coupled.
Page 9
Short Period Oscillation
The analysis of dynamic modes begins conven-
tionally by assessing the Short Period Oscilla-
tion(SPO) response due to its high frequency
characteristics which can lead to relatively large
accelerations that have the potential to damage
the aircraft unless heavily damped by design.
SPO
The mode is initiated by applying an impulsive
elevator step(Figure 14), which simulates the oc-
currence of a violent vertical gust, the response
is then observed by monitoring the angle of at-
tack, pitch rate and normal acceleration(Figures
12,13 and 14), which all exhibit abrupt devia-
tions from the equilibrium position and decay
just as rapidly(half life t1/2 of approximately 0.75
periods TSP O ). The fast dynamics are one of the
reasons why regulations CS 25.181 require this
mode to be heavily damped with the primary
controls in order to avoid subjecting the aircraft
to increased loading factor for long periods. The
FAA defines ”heavily damped” in AC-25.181 as
”the oscillation has decreased to 1/10 the initial
amplitude within approximately two cycles after
completion of the control input”, which is sat-
isfied according to the data obtained since the
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

oscillation is completely damped within the first

cycle.

Figure 17: SPO Variation in Normal Accleration

brake deployment can excite the oscillation as

well. A simple way of counteracting its effects on
General Aviation aircraft is to include a spring
Figure 15: SPO Variation in Angle of Attack mechanism which rejects the disturbance instan-
taneously and provides additional damping be-
Furthermore, the period of oscillation is in the fore the pilot has the chance to intervene.
range of the response time of the human pilot(1- A rough approximation of the damping ratio
2 seconds) as seen from Figure 15, which implies during flight testing is given by[6]:
that unless heavy damping was ensured through
design, by the time the pilot has the chance to
apply a corrective action for the perceived dis- 7 − N umberof overshoots 7−2
ζ≈ = = 0.5
turbance, the oscillation could already complete 10 10
(7)
a cycle and the pilot input would trigger res-
Having zeta and TSP O , the damped and natu-
onance. On the other hand both the altitude
ral frequencies can be calculated using the Log
and airspeed remain relatively constant through-
Decrement Method [2]:
out its life-cycle, which is just opposite from the
long-term oscillation(§5.2). 2π 2π
ωD = = = 4.14rad/s (8)
However, the SPO mode it is not only trig- TSP O 2 ∗ 0.85
gered by atmospheric instabilities, flap or speed
ωD
ωN = p = 3.66rad/s (9)
1 − ζ2

5.2 Phugoid Mode

Figure 16: SPO Variation in Pitch Rate
The second longitudinal mode is the long pe-
riod oscillation(known as Phugoid), which arises
naturally due to turbulence or light atmospheric
disturbances and in modern transport aircraft is
handled efficiently by the stability augmentation

Page 10
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

system. However for VFR flight or lower au-

tomation levels, appropriate damping must be
ensured by design, otherwise it could result in
long duration oscillations that require constant
corrective action from the pilot and hence be-
come tiring to fly.

Figure 19: The Variation in Airspeed

Figure 18: Phugoid Input Sequence

The mode has to be continuously excited using

a sequence of alternating elevator steps(Figure
18) in order to obtain clear measurement re-
sults. The oscillations following are most evident
by analysing the airspeed, pitch angle and alti- Figure 20: The Variation in Altitude
tude(Figures 19, 21 and 20), which all exhibit
slightly unstable characteristics, although those
might be attributed to the inexact amplitude of
the controls applied by the pilot.
The airspeed fluctuation arises from the long
spatial period of the mode, which implies that
for half the period the aeroplane will be in de-
scent mode and then ascend back by the same
amount(Figure 19).
The spatial variations in altitude could also
present a danger for VFR flights when the min-
imum allowable altitude margin is critical, from
Figure 21: The Pitch Angle Fluctuation
the test data obtained being evident that the
aeroplane could lose as much as 500ft during
Phugoid(Figure 20).

Page 11
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

Contrary to the Short Period Oscillation, the seconds. It can be seen from Figure 23 that the
angle of attack and and pitch rate remain fairly time taken for the roll rate to achieve 63% of the
constant throughout the time history of the steady state value(20deg/s) is less than 0.3 sec-
Phugoid. onds, which satisfies the regulations. This time
No specific regulation restricts these charac- could be further decreased for military aircraft
teristics for transport aircraft as it is considered by introducing a certain degree of anhedral or
a low frequency mode with no major effect on the sweep forward, which would inherently reduce
structural loading. However, for Normal, Util- the lateral stability of the aircraft. This is desir-
ity, Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aero- able in cases where collision avoidance or combat
planes the CS-23 Amendment imposes the sta- require fast convergence to the desired roll rate.
bility of the mode as a certification requirement
and it must be proven that once released from
±15% above the trim speed, the aeroplane ”must
not exhibit any dangerous characteristics”. This
criteria is difficult to assess with the available
data since the mode is being continuously ex-
cited throughout the manoeuvre and it’s not pos-
sible to observe its behaviour once released.

5.3 Roll Subsidence

The Roll mode is a non-oscillatory lateral-
directional mode, which characterises the re-
sponse of the aircraft when disturbed about its
longitudinal axis. Equation 10 describes its dy-
namics and suggests that once excited with a
step aileron input δa (Figure 22), the aircraft will
acquire a constant roll rate exponentially de-
pending on the time constant τr .
L
∆p(t) = − Lδpa (1 − e−t/τr )∆δa
(10)
The time constant for rolling motion τr is
a certification requirement and is specified in
MIL-F-8785C as ”Maximum roll mode time con- Where Lp is the roll damping derivative. There-
stant”, which for Levels 1 and 2 is generally 1.4 fore, faster convergence could also be achieved
Figure 22: The Aileron Input Triggering the Roll
Subsidence
The negative sign of the deflection(Figure 22)
indicates a left aileron down input, which gener-
ates a positive roll rate to the right(Figure 23).
It can be also noticed that the bank angle in-
creases evenly during the manoeuvre(Figure 24),
a convergence characteristic that could be at-
tributed to the low wing configuration which in-
fluences the dihedral effect and therefore lateral
stability.
Analytically it can be shown that:
1 2Ix u0
τr = − =− (11)
Lp QSb2 CLp

Page 12
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019
Figure 23: The Variation in Roll Rate
Figure 24: The Variation in Bank Angle
in flight by increasing the velocity u along the
x-axis, or by design by decreasing the wing span
b or wing area S.
5.4 Dutch Roll Mode
The Dutch Roll mode is an oscillatory lateral-
directional mode involving alternating fluctua-
tions in roll, yaw and sideslip while the aircraft
maintains a straight flight path. Although it in-
volves significantly less damping, the mode is the
directional equivalent of the Short Period Oscil-
lation.
Page 13
Figure 25: The Rudder Input Triggering the
Dutch Roll
The mode is excited by an alternating se-
quence of rudder step inputs(Figure 25), which
trigger oscillations in yaw rate and a symmetrical
variation in sideslip. As a result of the oscilla-
tion in sideslip for high degrees of dihedral(10
degrees for Jetstream 31) of the wing and due to
the the adverse roll produced by the rudder, the
airplane starts to oscillate in roll as well; it can
also be seen from Figure 26 that the oscillation
rates are out of phase.
By passing the p and r time histories through
a Fourier Analyser, it can be calculated that
the phases of the roll and yaw rates are 86 de-
grees apart(Figure 27) at a frequency of 62rad/s,
which is the window when the amplitude remains
mostly constant. This approaches well the the-
oretical result predicting the roll and yaw rates
to be 90 degrees out of phase.
Although not considered substantially haz-
ardous, at slow speeds the Dutch Roll presents a
risk of aerodynamic instability which could de-
termine the mode to develop into a spiral or spin.
As a result, regulations such article CS 23.181(b)
were established, which state that combined lat-
eraldirectional oscillations ”must be damped to
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

creases, which suggests a potential for instabil-

ity and the rather poor yaw damping of the air-
craft configuration. In large transport aircraft
or fighters these dynamics are allowed to be un-
stable as they are mostly handled electronically
by the stability augmentation system via ”yaw
dampers”.

Figure 26: The Variation in Roll Rate for Dutch

Roll

Figure 28: The Variation in Sideslip for Dutch

Roll

5.5 Spiral Mode

The spiral mode is a slow lateral-directional
mode which manifests as an exponential diver-
gence in roll attitude characterised by Equation
12:

Figure 27: Fourier Analysis of the Recorded

Data
∆r(t) = e−λspiral t (12)

1/10th amplitude in 7 cycles with the primary Where λspiral includes

controls”, which is satisfied by the results pre-
LβNr − LrNβ
sented in Figure 28. Although both the roll and λspiral = (13)
Lβ
yaw rate oscillations decay completely within
5 cycle after the removal of the rudder exci- This implies that the stability of the mode de-
tation, during the excitation the amplitude in- pends on the relative magnitudes of the dihedral

Page 14
@Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

effect of the wing and the weathercock effect of

the fin. As a consequence, some of the stabil-
ity requirements for Spiral and Dutch Roll will
be contradictory, and often the trade-off is made
in favour of the latter, as it is assumed that the
slow development of a spiral descent would be
easily preventable by the average pilot, since the
incremental airspeed rise and roll attitude drop
are good indicators of the incipient phase of a
spiral(Figures 29 and 30).

Figure 30: The Variation in Altitude for Spiral

Figure 29: The Variation in Airspeed for Spiral

Figure 31: The Variation in Bank Angle for Spi-
During the test, the demonstration was con- ral
ducted by setting up a co-ordinated turn at 20
◦ angle of bank and releasing the controls. A
6 Conclusions
good indication that the Jetstream 31 is spiral
unstable is the fact that the angle of bank in-
Although throughout the paper the importance
creases gradually from the release point if not
of stability has been emphasised from multiple
counteracted(Figure 31).
viewpoints, it must be mentioned that a solid
On the other hand, having an unstable lateral degree of stability might not be suitable or de-
mode handled by the SAS also implies that more sirable for all cases. Not only an aft CG de-
lateral manoeuvrability is gained. Also, since the grades the manoeuvrability of the aircraft but
spiral takes up to one or two minutes to fully it also limits the control of the pilot over the
develop it is included in the fundamental pilot dynamics of the aeroplane in critical situations
training requirements and it is assumed that it such as stall or spin recovery and it also increases
will be noticed and corrected in time. the fuel consumption(due to the increased drag

Page 15
 @Victor Covasan, University of Sheffield 2019

produced by extra surface deflection and nose- [7] Leland M. Nicolai.

down tendency). As for the Jetstream 31 aero- Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design
plane, the results indicate excellent flying and Volume 1-Aircraft Design. American Insti-
handling qualities, well balanced between stabil- tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; p. 634,
ity and ease of control, facilitated by the stick First Edition.
free spring system and the high degree of di-
hedral. The instability of the spiral mode still [8] Ranjan Vepa.
brings advantages to the overall flying character- Fligt Dynamics, Simulation and Control
istics by helping avoid unstable Dutch Roll dy- CRC Press, 2015; p. 89, First Edition.
namics and improving the lateral manoeuvrabil-
ity, while the Short Period Oscillation and other
critical dynamics have been proven to be reliably
damped.

References
[1] Milton O. Thompson.
Flight Research: Problems Encountered and
What They Should Teach Us. National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, 2000.
NASA History Division.
[2] Thomas R. Yechout. Introduction to Air-
craft Flight Mechanics. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2003. p. 197.
[3] Michael V. Cook. Flight Dynamics Princi-
ples. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997. p. 36,
Second Edition.
[4] Darrol Stinton.
The Design of the Aeroplane John Wiley &
Sons, 1983; p. 407, First Edition.
[5] National Flying Laboratory Centre. Flight
Laboratory Course Handbook. Cranfield Uni-
versity.
[6] Daniel P. Raymer.
Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach
American Institute of Aeronautics and As-
tronautics, 2012; p.636, Fifth Edition.

Page 16

View publication stats